One of the problems the leather industry faces is that it suffers from an image problem. The perception is that the industry remains in the past, with antiquated machinery, nasty, polluting chemicals and long processing times – definitely not something in tune with the 21st century. Indeed many tanning groups didn’t make it to the 21st century (see Table 1).
At a recent chemical industry conference, Dr Armin Meyer, chairman and ceo of Ciba, and Dr Brendan O’Neill, ceo of ICI, were asked whether there were any positives being in the chemical industry. They came up with three phrases of which the industry could be proud: ‘clever people’, ‘innovative’ and ‘truly international’.
Such words can be applied to the leather industry. Teaching colleges such as LGR/ Reutlingen, the Leather Research Laboratory at the university of Cincinnati and the British School of Leather Technology, research organisations and forward-looking tanneries are nurturing the ‘clever people’ and applying the principles of man-management to ensure that the industry holds on to the people who will be able to direct the industry in the future.
The competition will not be from he ‘alternatives to leather’ sector but also from animal activists, who wish to see leather tarred with the same image as they succeeded in doing with fur. In the 1960s the fear was that Corfam would replace leather as the choice for footwear – a direct competitor, which was seen off.
The problem the industry has now is that the competitor is not in direct competition. They are using spoiling tactics, spreading false truths or perhaps true truths? – about certain sectors of the industry, which are more difficult to refute. You cannot carry out a simple wear test and prove that Peta is inferior to leather in the same way that you could with Corfam. Thus, we need the ‘clever people’.
Innovation has always been at the forefront of leather technology. Look at the article about Pittards plc in the February issue of Leather International to see how innovative that one company have been – and there are many others the world over, who are finding niche markets by using innovative ideas.
Maybe where the leather industry is lacking is in being ‘truly international’. Now you may say that there is a leather industry in practically every country in the world – how much more international do you want? But, and it is a big but, although the industry is international, individual companies do not have international visibility.
OK, there are some that trade worldwide, and market that way, but there are none that do it on the scale of say ICI, or any of the big pharmaceutical companies. You may say that they are in a different league and that it is not comparing like with like. Possibly, but the likes of Stahl and Clariant, who serve the leather industry directly, do have subsidiaries in many counties, so why not tanneries?
The most the leather industry has are, say, American tanneries, who have relocated their wet-blueing to China or Taiwan to save on wages, environmental costs etc, but they don’t market the leather in 56 countries under one brand name. Something that the chemical companies who supply the leather industry do.
Hannam suggested that the chemical industry’s main negative point was that it has too much history. Again, a direct parallel can be drawn with the leather industry. The image is still of old fashioned working practices, a labour intensive industry, which is dirty, polluting and, ironically, elitist. Leather is for the owners of Rolls Royce cars, who fly on Concorde, and who can afford to buy bespoke leather shoes.
The historical assets spring from the fact that many tanneries were in the centre of a town because they needed water, and a river is somewhere a town springs up. Being labour intensive, the manpower was also readily available. But, today, the public are far more concerned with the environmental problems. They do not want to be situated near a tannery because of the smell, and other supposed pollution problems.
Of course, there are cases where tanneries have been built ‘out-of-town’, and the town has come to meet them – Pearce’s factory in Northampton (which has now been taken over by Connollys) is one that springs to mind. Another is the former Keunen’s tannery in Rushden – supposedly closed because the millionaire owner of the local football club didn’t like having the tannery’s effluent pits next to his hospitality suites, which were built years after the tannery!
On a larger scale, there is the new complex in Kolkatta, which the local authorities hope will remove the 500 tanneries from the highly populated centre of the city. While this is a good idea, it is meeting with a deal of resistance from tanners due to what they see as unfair handling of funds and better deals being offered elsewhere. Similar schemes have been undertaken in Türkiye and Egypt.
The question is how to change this image. Tackle the old assets by reducing their number, moving tanneries to specially built complexes, clean up the process and reduce pollution, eliminate inefficient ways of working, and – perhaps most importantly – forget old philosophies. Gone are the days that the limeyard foreman walked into the tannery, smelt the air and said: ‘2% more arsenic in pit number one’.
Gone are the days that a leather was made in a ‘year and a day’ to ensure quality control. The 21st century brings with it 20 keys, man-management, ISO 14,000, and the use of hi-tech equipment and processes that can turn a hide into a piece of leather with less waste, less chemicals and more yield per sq m of raw material.
To suceed in the chemical industry Hannam said that companies must:
* be truly international
* exploit developing countries
As stated above, there are few tanning groups that are truly international, perhaps Ecco. But if tanneries are going to get the best prices for their raw materials they should start acting globally, with the business stature that brings. How many tanneries can say they source hides and skins worldwide, have a guaranteed supply source, without being subjected to the vagaries of the market?
‘Exploit’ may be a bit strong, but there are partnerships – Pittards have a very successful programme of improving the quality of hair sheep from Africa, by sending trained technicians out to the countries where the expertise is needed. This is good for the country’s balance of payments and ensures that the tannery receives a quality of raw or semi-processed leather it needs to meet its standards. Arcapelli in Rwanda are another example of a company helping the locals to add value to their raw materials.
However, something like 90% of some African countries’ raw material base is lost because of poor husbandry and/or lack of collection. Therefore, outside groups need to be employed to gather this lost harvest, which they are not going to do without making a profit.
The leather industry in industrialised west Europe and north America has been decimated by the high volume/low cost enterprises of the Far East. This leads onto Hannam’s next point which was that, to survive, the chemical sector had to achieve ‘focused diversification.’
Again this can be applied to the leather industry – spread too far, into too many products and, if you are in the West, competition from countries such as China or Vietnam, will soon put the tannery out of business. At the other end of the scale, if a tannery is too focused, perhaps relying heavily on one source, then that too can lead to the demise of the tannery.
An example of this is a tannery in the UK which produces parchment. The tannery is highly dependent on the UK government, to whom it supplies parchment on which new legislation is written. At the end of 1999, there was a motion to reduce costs in parliament and stop using parchment. Passing this motion would probably have resulted in the demise of the tannery. Luckily the motion was defeated, but it highlights the difficulty of relying on one or few customers.
Thus, a balance is needed, and many tanneries, especially in the industrialised world, have now found a niche in which to sell their products. They have also innovated by striving for ‘greener/cleaner’ processes, and using supply company products which merge processing (eg dye retanning fatliquoring all in one bath), saving time, chemicals and, ultimately, money.
Innovation has come in the form of new uses for leather (eg as a flooring), improved physical processes (eg greater flame retardancy) or waterproof leathers or leathers that are softer, but without increasing the fogging value – vitally important for automotive leathers.
Conclusion
For the leather industry to move confidently into the 21st century, it needs to lose, or at least dampen down, the associated history, the old fashioned image, and the perception that the general public have of the industry. It needs to keep on innovating, surely the way forward. It needs to keep the ‘bright young things’ in the industry – OK, so there will be no jobs for life anymore, but for a tannery to be successful it must train technicians and allow them the freedom to express their views; and it must do this from a focused, yet diversified base.
