Sustainability in fashion: Sheepskin coats over PU leather jackets
In recent years, growing awareness of environmental issues has led to increased scrutiny of the materials used in everyday products. One such debate revolves around the sustainability of natural materials such as sheepskin versus synthetic alternatives such as polyurethane (PU) leather. Both materials have their advantages and disadvantages, but from an environmental point of view, lambskin is generally more sustainable. In this article, we examine the reasons for this, including resource consumption, biodegradability, durability, and overall environmental impact.
1. Material source and production process
The first key factor in determining the sustainability of a material is the source and production process of the material.
Sheepskin: Sheepskin is a byproduct of the meat industry, which means it uses materials that would otherwise become waste. This makes it a more resource efficient choice as there is no need to raise additional animals solely for their hides. However, the tanning process can be chemically intensive, especially if traditional methods involving chromium are used. However, modern eco-friendly tanning processes such as vegetable tanning are becoming increasingly popular, reducing the environmental impact of leather production.
PU leather: Polyurethane leather, often called “vegan leather”, is a petroleum-based product. Its primary material, polyurethane, is derived from fossil fuels, which are not renewable resources. The production of PU leather involves significant energy consumption and harmful emissions, including volatile organic compounds (VOCs). In addition, the chemical processes used to produce PU leather contribute to environmental damage.
In terms of raw material procurement, sheepskin ranks first due to its reliance on existing agricultural industries, while PU leather is less sustainable in terms of resource consumption due to its dependence on fossil fuels.
2. Biodegradability
Another critical aspect of sustainability is how well a material decomposes at the end of its life cycle. A sustainable material should not contribute to long-term pollution of the environment after disposal.
Sheepskin: Natural leather, including sheepskin, is biodegradable under the right conditions. It breaks down into organic matter over time, especially when treated with vegetable tanning agents instead of harmful chemicals. This makes it a more environmentally friendly option in terms of environmental impact after use. Chrome tanned leather takes longer to break down, but still breaks down much better than synthetic alternatives.
PU leather: PU leather, on the other hand, is a synthetic material made from plastic polymers. It is non-biodegradable and can remain in landfills for hundreds of years. During its decomposition, microplastics are released into the environment, which pose a threat to wildlife and ecosystems. Even if recycled, the quality of PU leather often deteriorates after each cycle, limiting its recyclability.
Considering the biological degradability of sheepskin, it is clearly more sustainable in the long term compared to PU leather.
3. Durability and longevity
The lifespan of a product plays a significant role in its overall sustainability. Longer-lasting, durable materials reduce the need for frequent replacements, which in turn reduces the environmental impact of manufacturing, shipping and landfilling.
Lambskin: Lambskin is known for its durability and ability to age with dignity. With proper care, leather products can last for decades and acquire a patina over time, which increases their aesthetic appeal. This longevity reduces the need for replacement, thus conserving resources and reducing the overall environmental footprint.
PU Leather: PU leather, while often designed to mimic the look of real leather, is generally less durable. It is prone to cracking and peeling, especially when exposed to heat or moisture. This shorter lifespan means that PU leather products often need to be replaced more often, which over time leads to more material use and more waste.
In terms of longevity, lambskin offers a more sustainable solution as it reduces the need for frequent replacements and minimizes resource consumption over time.
4. Environmental impact of disposal Disposal
is the last stage of the material’s life cycle, and handling the material at this stage can have profound environmental consequences.
Lambskin: As mentioned earlier, natural leather is biodegradable, which means it can return to the earth without causing long-term environmental damage. Some leather products can also be composted depending on the tanning process used. Although the composting or decomposition process requires some energy, it does not lead to the harmful accumulation of non-degradable waste.
PU leather: Being a plastic-based material, PU leather not only takes hundreds of years to decompose, but also emits toxic chemicals during its decomposition. These chemicals, such as phthalates and dioxins, can leach into soil and water systems, causing long-term pollution. Furthermore, burning PU leather can release harmful gases into the atmosphere, contributing to air pollution and climate change.
In terms of disposal, lambskin has a much smaller environmental impact than PU leather, making it a more sustainable choice.
5. Ethical Considerations
While some may argue that synthetic materials such as PU leather are more ethical due to their animal-free production, the wider environmental impact of fossil fuel-based synthetics must also be considered. Sheepskin’s status as a byproduct of the meat industry means that no additional animals are raised or killed solely for their skin, which reduces the ethical burden. The environmental damage caused by the production and disposal of PU leather raises questions about the ethics of using petrochemical-derived materials in a world where sustainability is increasingly a priority.
Conclusion
Despite being a natural, animal-derived material, lambskin has many advantages over PU leather in terms of sustainability. From reliance on renewable agricultural by-products, to biodegradability and excellent durability, sheepskin outperforms PU leather in almost every environmental impact category. While PU leather offers a cruelty-free alternative to the use of animals, it is overall a less sustainable solution due to its significant environmental costs in terms of resource consumption, biodegradability and environmental pollution.
References:
- Gupta, K. , et al. (2020). Leather vs. Synthetic Alternatives: An Environmental Impact Comparison . Journal of Sustainable Materials, 32(4), 245-258.
- Muthu, SS (2014). Sustainability in the Textile Industry . Springer Series in Green Energy and Technology.
- Chen, H. , et al. (2018). Environmental Impact of Biodegradable and Synthetic Leather . Eco-Design Journal, 15(2), 112-124.
- Verma, R. , et al. (2021). Microplastics Pollution and the Leather Industry . Journal of Environmental Science, 18(1), 67-85.
