Cotance, the acronym representing European tanning in Brussels, is withdrawing from the technical secretariat for PEFCR Footwear and Apparel, along with the other acronyms representing natural materials (leather, but not only leather: also cotton, wool, and alpaca, for example) for the same reason: the “category rules”, i.e., the methodology for calculating the carbon footprint of accessories and apparel, that the table is drafting, unduly favor synthetics.
PEFCR Footwear and Apparel
The technical secretariat launched in 2024 with a positive and agreeable premise: to take into account, when calculating the environmental footprint, the durability of the product. A value that, of course, should favor a long-lasting material by definition, like leather. But the goal wasted away in execution. “We joined the process in good faith to build a fair and scientifically based environmental framework for fashion”, is the comment by Gustavo Gonzalez-Quijano, secretary of Cotance. Instead, we have witnessed a system that penalizes durable and natural materials such as leather. We cannot support a methodology that promotes fast fashion at the expense of durable quality. We remain committed to dialogue and hope to convince the European Commission to review this in the next PEFCR review”.
The wrong method
The methodological flaw in the methodology, denounced in a joint note by Cotance, CEC (footwear), IFF (fur), IWTO (wool) and 15 other acronyms last June, lies in the parameter chosen to identify the durability of a material. They did not link it to absolute time, in short, but to the number of uses arbitrarily converted to days and seasons. But where did the technical secretariat come up with this idea? Here we come to the painful point: the secretariat got it from the Higg Product Module, the tool devised by the old SAC (Sustainable Apparel Coalition), now renamed Cascale, which is the same table coordinator. Ouch.
Who controls the adviser
SAC has had to rename itself Cascale after public authorities (such as the Norwegian Competition Authority NCA) and private entities (Kering above all) questioned the reliability of its Higg Index since 2022. That is, the tool they were proposing to the market that would allow the measurement of a product’s environmental and social impact. This method behind the index appeared to be “flawed,” and many accused it of being self-referential. The distortions of the index seemed to serve the interests of those former SAC members (such as the sports giants) who employ more synthetic fibers than natural ones. The scenario is now playing out again for PEFCR: at the European Commission, which is the “observer” of the secretariat as well as the entity validating its work, someone should take notice.
Photo from archive
Read also:
- Spin 360 estimates the accurate figure and Higg reduces the impact of leather
- Will a rebranding be enough for Higg to recover its reputation?
- Higg Index: Kering rejects it, Norway takes it apart (again)
