A leather bag may seem a world away from a felled forest. It is in the window, shiny, well stitched, hanging under a warm light. Before arriving there, however, it went through a long supply chain: farms, slaughterhouses, traders, tanneries, transport, processing, brands. Each step moves the object a little further away from its origin. Each document can clarify or confuse.
This is why the exclusion of bovine leather from the EU regulation against deforestation weighs more than it seems. The European Commission has modified the list of products covered by the standard, leaving out raw hides, treated hides and bovine leather. However, cattle, wood, cocoa, coffee, soy, palm oil and rubber remain inside, i.e. the raw materials considered most linked to the destruction of forests. The general objective of the regulation remains to prevent products linked to deforestation or forest degradation from entering the European market.
A flaw in the beef supply chain
The choice comes within a process of simplification of the norm. Leather is considered a derivative of the bovine supply chain, with a lower economic value than meat and with often separate commercial channels. Brussels therefore believes the direct link between skin and the drive to open new pastures is weaker. Furthermore, on an administrative level, complete traceability back to the land of origin is described as very difficult for many operators.
The environmental problem remains there, quite evident. The same animal can produce meat subject to controls and leather excluded from the most stringent part of the law. This is where the criticism from environmental organizations comes from: removing leather from the list risks creating a gray area right next to one of the most delicate supply chains due to the pressure on tropical ecosystems.
The point also concerns Italy. Our country has a strong tanning sector, linked to fashion, footwear, furniture and car interiors. Much of the leather processed in the Italian districts comes from global markets, including from countries where cattle breeding has a difficult relationship with the protection of forests. A rule requiring clear origin and controls along the chain would have had a direct effect on this part of manufacturing.
Deforestation remains in the shopping cart
The EU regulation on deforestation was born from a simple fact: European consumption has an impact on the world’s forests. Coffee, cocoa, soya, beef, palm oil, wood and rubber enter homes, supermarkets, furniture, tyres, feed and processed products every day. The idea of the law is to ask companies to demonstrate that what they sell in the European Union comes from legal supply chains and from land without recent deforestation.
The new deadlines have already been moved forward. Large and medium-sized businesses will have to comply from 30 December 2026, while micro and small businesses will have until 30 June 2027. The postponement was presented as a way to make the application more manageable, after months of requests from companies, governments and production sectors.
Calling it simplification is easy. The problem is understanding who pays for that simplicity: the company that fills out fewer papers or the forest that disappears from the documents? Brussels eases the load precisely where the supply chain becomes most difficult to follow. Environmental traceability only works if it follows the material even when it changes shape, name and commercial value. The cut forest remains the cut forest even when the final product becomes an elegant shoe or the upholstery of a seat.
Luxury needs origin
Cowhide is often talked about as a by-product. A matter that comes later, almost a recovery. It’s part of the conversation, sure. The other part is about transparency. A material may be secondary to the economic value of the animal and still need a legible supply chain, especially when it enters into products sold as quality, craftsmanship, durability, sustainability.
For a consumer, understanding where a bag or a pair of shoes really comes from remains complicated. Labels often talk about workmanship, style, made in, type of leather. Much less than the origin of the animal, the country of breeding, the risk of deforestation linked to the supply chain. With exclusion from the regulation, this opacity risks lasting longer.
Europe’s anti-deforestation law will continue to control many important commodities. On this ground, however, he takes a step back. The flesh remains under the lens. The skin slides off. In the middle there remains a supply chain that needs more light, not less.
You might also be interested in:
