See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/362280910

Sustainable supply chain management in the leather industry: a systematic

literature review

Article in International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications · July 2022

DOI: 10.1080/13675567.2022.2104233

CITATIONS READS

7 1,612

5 authors, including:

Xiaowei Chen Linqi Xu

Zhejiang Sci-Tech University The University of York
25 PUBLICATIONS 665 CITATIONS 3 PUBLICATIONS 33 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Fu Jia Yiqi Yu
The University of York 2 PUBLICATIONS 11 CITATIONS
195 PUBLICATIONS 6,043 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Linqi Xu on 05 August 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Logistics Research and
Applications
A Leading Journal of Supply Chain Management

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjol20

Sustainable supply chain management in the

leather industry: a systematic literature review

Xiaowei Chen, Linqi Xu, Zhou Ren, Fu Jia & Yiqi Yu

To cite this article: Xiaowei Chen, Linqi Xu, Zhou Ren, Fu Jia & Yiqi Yu (2022): Sustainable supply
chain management in the leather industry: a systematic literature review, International Journal of
Logistics Research and Applications, DOI: 10.1080/13675567.2022.2104233

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2022.2104233

Published online: 26 Jul 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 46

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjol20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS: RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS
https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2022.2104233

Sustainable supply chain management in the leather industry: a

systematic literature review
Xiaowei Chena, Linqi Xub, Zhou Renc, Fu Jiab and Yiqi Yud
a
School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Zhejiang Sci-Tech University, Hangzhou, China; bThe York
Management School, University of York, Heslington, York, UK; cArchitectural Design Department, Zhejiang Province
Institute of Architectural Design and Research, ZIAD, Hangzhou, China; dStraights Institute, Minjiang Unveristy,
Fuzhou, China

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

As a global manufacturing sector, the leather industry has been a critical Received 28 March 2022
player in the international commerce market. With growing concerns Accepted 18 July 2022
about its sustainability, there tends to be an increasing number of
KEYWORDS
studies in academic literature as well as grey literature (e.g. industry Leather; sustainability supply
reports) focusing on leather supply chain management. However, there chain governance; literature
is a lack of a comprehensive review of the current research that review
illustrates the relationships between sustainable leather supply chain
governance practices and their antecedents and consequences. This
paper aims to identify the main themes of sustainable leather supply
chains through a systematic literature review of 61 studies published
between 1992 and 2022 identified from the Scopus and WoS databases
and industry reports and propose a theoretical framework based on the
thematic findings for future research. In these contexts, five themes
were identified from the literature: drivers, practice, barriers, enablers
and outcomes of sustainable supply chain governance in the leather
industry. Ultimately, a conceptual framework identifying the themes
and their linkages was developed. The article also suggests future
research directions and managerial implications.

1. Introduction
Leather and derived products come from tanned animals’ (cattle, sheep, goat, etc.) skins and hides
(COTANCE 2020). Leather is a by-product of slaughterhouses in the meat supply chain, an end
product of tanneries, and raw material for leather product manufacturers (De Marchi and Di
Maria 2019; Jaegler 2016). According to the European Union (EU) regulations (EC No 1069/
2009 and EU No 142/2011), animal by-products are classified into three levels according to the pub-
lic and animal health risk level and contamination; and leather belongs to Category 3 with a low
level of risk (Amicarelli, Fiore, and Bux 2021; Ferronato et al. 2021). According to the Standard
International Trade Classification proposed by the World Trade Organisation (WTO), Leather-
related raw materials include hides, skins, and fur skins. Except for raw materials, leading leather
products include footwear, accessories, and automotive upholstery (COTANCE 2020 ), such as
seats, dashboards, and door trim pieces (Kim 2021). In addition to regular leather, there are also
edible hides, such as ponmo, a cowhide that looks like beef after processing (Tijani and Ajayi 2016).
The leather lifecycle generally starts from slaughterhouses (COTANCE 2020). In developing
regions where slaughterhouses are not widely available, hides and skins are collected by traders

CONTACT Fu Jia fu.jia@york.ac.uk

© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 X. CHEN ET AL.

from families and rural butchers and sold to tanneries, which process them, from pickling to the
final finished leather (Brautigam, Weis, and Tang 2018). The leather (tanning) industry is a valuable
sector in the global market. The EU, China, Brazil, India, and other producers share global turnover
with value and quality (COTANCE 2020). In the World statistical compendium for raw hides and
skins, leather and leather footwear 1999–2015 of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the Uni-
ted Nations (FAO), we learn that from 2012 to 2014, developing countries produce about twice as
much raw Bovine hides and skins, and leather (heavy and light) as developed countries on average,
but they still import raw materials from developed countries, and developed countries are a little
more in demand of leather products; developing countries produce about 3.5 times more leather
footwear than developed countries and mainly export to developed economies (FAO 2016).
Later, from 2015 to 2020, the leather production and trading data (FAO 2022) show that there
are several developing countries (China, India, Argentina, Pakistan, Mexico and South Africa) in
the top ten leading leather producing country list (Figure 1). Among them, China and Mexico
are large leather importers, while the values of leather trading (both import and export) in other
developing countries are much smaller. In addition, the USA is one of the leaders in leather
production and exports. Brazil, with a similar leather production level accounts for only a tiny
proportion of leather imports and exports. In Europe, the leather sector comprises about 16,000
companies and 33,000 workers; its downstream manufacturers generate a turnover of nearly 125
billion euros and provide jobs for 2 million employees (COTANCE 2020).
Professional leather organisations insist that leather might be the oldest example of the circular
economy (COTANCE 2020; LWG 2020): Animal hides and skins have been used as clothes and
shoes since ancient times; and the use and recycling of leather (from slaughterhouses and daily
use) is better than discarding them and can reduce the need for non-renewable sources (Amicarelli,
Fiore, and Bux 2021; Jeffer et al. 2021). However, the negative environmental impact of the leather
production and selling process has long been widely condemned (Islam et al. 2018; Śmiechowski
and Lament 2017).
From where leather is obtained, the meat commodity is one of the worst environmental issues as
it leads to a large water footprint, CO2 emission, deforestation, and pollution (Mammadova, Beha-
gel, and Masiero 2020). Later in the tanning process, chemicals such as dyes can pollute water and
the environment and even damage the health of people and animals (Dwivedi, Agrawal, and
Madaan 2019). More importantly, the rising animal welfare concerns can also be problematic for
the leather supply chain. Despite these, other sustainable concerns still exist.

Figure 1. 2015–2020 Regional hides & skins trading and production (data from (FAO 2022)).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 3

To address above concerns, sustainable practices have been adopted by the leather supply chain
members to work together and implement sustainability in leather supply chains. During the
leather production process, cleaner production technologies have been applied to enhance resource
and waste management efficiency; more environmental leather alternatives have been developed to
provide sustainable options (Rolling et al. 2021; Shin and Jin 2021). Moreover, governments and
non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have proposed different sustainable initiatives and stan-
dards to encourage and regulate environmental practices in the leather industry, such as the
Responsible Leather Initiative (Textile Exchange 2018) and environmental audit standards
(ECO2L 2022; LWG 2020). To support leather sustainability in developing countries, some leather
SCM projects have been conducted by the United Nations and other developed countries to offer
sustainable training and suggestions (EC-ELIIT 2019; SWITCH-Asia 2007). However, the press-
ures, practices and performances of sustainable leather supply chain and their relations are still
unclear and need to be discussed thoroughly.
Most previous literature reviews of the leather supply chain focus on production technology
and waste management (Dixit et al. 2015; Kanagaraj et al. 2015). For example, Appala, Pandhare,
and Bajpai (2022) and Moktadir and Rahman (2022) review the articles on solid leather wastes;
Cassano et al. (2001) focus on the aqueous effluents. Research on upscaled functional leather and
leather coatings is also reviewed (Wang et al. 2021; Wu et al. 2021). In terms of alternatives to
traditional leather, the latest advances for synthetic leather and alternative leather chemicals
research have been concluded (China et al. 2020; Sathish et al. 2016; Zhu et al. 2021). However,
few researchers comprehensively investigate sustainable leather supply chain management
(SCM). Some mechanisms, such as green chemistry tanning protocols and systems, have been
suggested (Nalyanya et al. 2019). Environmental performance assessments in the leather post-
tanning process have been reviewed (Hansen, de Aquim, and Gutterres 2021). Omoloso et al.
(2021) study the sustainability of the leather industry and noticed the growing number of sus-
tainability research. Their literature review classifies the themes (performances, drivers, barriers
and reporting, etc.) based on the triple bottom line of sustainability: social, economic and
environmental sustainability, with no consideration of practice or antecedents to practice. Collec-
tively, there is a lack of a comprehensive and systematic review of the leather supply chain.
Specifically, it would be valuable to delve into the drivers (directly), the barriers and enablers
(indirectly), and the sustainable leather supply chain governance mechanisms and their outcomes
in the leather supply chain. Hence, our research aims to study the current state of leather SCM.
We developed the following research questions (RQs):
RQ1: What are the drivers, barriers and enablers of sustainable leather supply chain management?

RQ2: What are the supply chain governance mechanisms used in the leather industry towards sustainability?

RQ3: What are the outcomes of the sustainable supply chain governance mechanisms?

The main purpose of this paper is to systematically review the current leather supply chain
studies to investigate key research themes and propose a comprehensive conceptual model and sug-
gestions for future research.
The paper is structured as follows: section two introduces the reviewing process and descriptive
analysis results. Then, we discuss the thematic findings in section three and propose an integrated
theoretical model in section four. Finally, we explore the managerial implications and potential
future research directions.

2. Research methodology
In this research, we follow the guidance of Denyer and Tranfield (2009) to adopt a systematic lit-
erature review method to investigate sustainable leather supply chain studies. This section intro-
duces our collection of literature and descriptive analysis.
4 X. CHEN ET AL.

2.1. Material collection

The screening methodology is mainly employed on the Scopus database, one of the largest data-
bases of academic articles. The scanning process is introduced in Figure 2. First, we defined the key-
words for searching the articles on Scopus and the Web of Science database. Regarding the literature
review topic, the keywords we adopt for the broad search include two types: the leather industry and
supply chain (Figure 2).
For the first type, as leather is the by-product of the slaughterhouse, we include words related to
the leather production process, such as ‘leather’ and ‘tanner*’ (the wildcard ‘*’ used at the end of a
word to represent any number of characters to expand the search of similar terms). Besides, meat
supply chain (slaughterhouse) research is also included as it is the origin of leathers. Also, we con-
sider leather in different conditions and other professional leather names acknowledged in the
leather industry (The Leather Dictionary 2021).
For the second one, we adopt the supply chain keywords provided by Yang, Jia, and Xu (2019)
and the terms associated with supplier selection from Rajeev et al. (2017). Although we didn’t apply
any sustainability-related keywords, all papers related to sustainable SCM in the leather industry
could be captured using the keyword combination above.
Specifically, we used ‘AND’ in the ‘Advanced Search’ on Scopus and Web of Science databases to
look for all possible combinations between these two classes of keywords (linked by ‘OR’). Our
research only focuses on published academic articles in English (review papers were excluded) in
the subject areas of Business, Management and Accounting, Economics and Finance, Social Sciences,
Decision Sciences and Multidisciplinary for Scopus (Business Economics and Operational Research
Management Science for Web of Science). Initially, the first search yielded 455 articles in Scopus
and 169 in the Web of Science.
Second, we carefully read the title and abstract of each paper to check if it aims at studying the
SCM of the leather industry rather than at studying a wide range of industries. And, for the articles
related to the slaughterhouses in the meat supply chain, we excluded those discussing only poultry
such as chicken, as these slaughterhouses typically do not produce general leather by-products. We
also ensured no review paper was included in our results and excluded papers focusing on specific
technical elements of leather production or other areas such as Education, Biology, etc. After the
process, 89 articles remained for further potential review.
Finally, we reviewed the full text with the same criteria and checked the references of qualified
papers for more candidate papers. Additionally, slaughterhouse-related articles without concerning

Figure 2. Material collection.

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 5

animal by-products were excluded. At the same time, we also included industry reports to under-
stand the leather SCM better, as the leather industry has been playing an important role in the glo-
bal commodity market for thousands of years. Feeding into the lack of academic leather articles, we
obtained seven industry reports by professional and leather organisations online, covering environ-
mental development, trading, and consumer attitudes. The reports adopted are published by well-
known national and international leather industry research organisations and could bring valuable
insight to the research topic, such as the representative body of the European Leather Industry
(COTANCE 2020) and not-for-profit organisations for the world’s leading environmental leather
certification (LWG 2020). After the final round of scanning, 61 articles remained: 49 relevant to
the leather supply chain, five concern the meat supply chain (with slaughterhouses that produce
leather by-products), and seven industrial reports for analysis. The latest search was conducted
in May 2022.
To improve the reliability and replicability of this review, we follow Gold, Seuring, and Beske’s
(2010) procedure to conduct inductive analysis and coding independently to synthetically analyse
the themes. After the coders developed and agreed on the coding and analysis, we adopted the con-
ceptual model provided by Jia et al.’s (2018) to investigate five themes: drivers, ex-ante barriers,
mechanisms, ex-post barriers and outcomes. Additionally, we also concluded enablers from our
reviewed articles.

2.2. Descriptive analysis

The distribution of the 61 articles identified in this literature review by type is illustrated in Figure 3.
Almost 80% of the articles reviewed focus on the leather supply chain (49), 8% for slaughterhouse-
related meat supply chain studies with leathers as by-products (5), and 12% are industry reports (7)
from professional leather organisations at national or international levels.
The publication years (from 1992 to 2022) are shown in Figure 4. From 1992 to 2016, a limited
number (one or two) of academic articles were published. Since 2017, the annual number has
increased significantly. We learn that eleven papers were published in 2021, followed by nine in
2020 and eight in 2019. Among the 54 reviewed academic articles, 37 were published between
2017 and 2021, accounting for nearly 70% of the academic research in our literature review. This
may be an indication of the growing research interests in the leather industry and sustainable SCM.
Table 1 presents the international journals contributing to this topic. Journal of Cleaner Pro-
duction contributes the most (7 papers). Apart from the Journal of Fashion Marketing and Manage-
ment (3), Annals of Operations Research (2), Business Strategy and the Environment (2) and Journal
of Business Research (2), each of the other journals has only one paper in our review (Table 1). Fewer
than 30% of the academic papers in our literature review were published in the top five journals,
suggesting that the literature on our topic is dispersed.

Figure 3. Distribution of article types.

6 X. CHEN ET AL.

Figure 4. Distribution of papers per year (n = 54).

Table 1. Distribution of article sources.

Journal Number of papers Quantiles
Journal of Cleaner Production 7 Q1
Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 3 Q1
Annals of Operations Research 2 Q1
Business Strategy and the Environment 2 Q1
Journal of Business Research 2 Q1
African Affairs 1 Q1
Agribusiness 1 Q2
British Food Journal 1 Q2
China Economic Review 1 Q1
Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 1 Q2
Espacios 1 Q3
Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal 1 Q1
Fashion and Textiles 1 Q2
Fashion Practice 1 Q1
Geoforum 1 Q1
International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 1 Q2
International Journal of Consumer Studies 1 Q2
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 1 Q2
International Journal of Manpower 1 Q2
International Journal of Production Research 1 Q1
International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management 1 Q1
International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 1 Q2
Journal of African Business 1 Q1
Journal of Agricultural Extension 1 Q4
Journal of Competitiveness 1 Q1
Journal of Economic Geography 1 Q1
Journal of Enterprise Information Management 1 Q1
Journal of Global Fashion Marketing 1 Q1
Journal of Regulatory Economics 1 Q2
Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management 1 Q2
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 1 Q1
Journal of World Business 1 Q1
Land Use Policy 1 Q1
Liverpool Law Review 1 Q3
Problems and Perspectives in Management 1 Q2
RAIRO – Operations Research 1 Q3
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 1 Q1
Science Technology and Society 1 Q2
Sociological Perspectives 1 Q1
Supply Chain Forum 1 Q2
Sustainability (Switzerland) 1 Q2
Technology in Society 1 Q1
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 1 Q1
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 7

The distribution of research methods in the papers is shown in Figure 5. Half of our reviewed
articles apply more than one research method; the specific methods of every paper are listed in
the Appendix. The majority adopted surveys (31), followed by interviews (21), modelling (20)
and case studies (16). The result suggests that researchers give priority to qualitative methods
and mixed methods when conducting leather SCM research. This may be due to the lack of quan-
titative data and the emerging nature of the topic. Also, there is a lack of theoretical underpinning
for the reviewed articles. 35 out of the 54 academic papers do not adopt a theory, and the rest applies
theories such as Reasoned Action theory (3), Fuzzy set theory (2) and Material flow analysis theory
(2). We also notice that over 90% of the reviewed articles discuss the research topic within the con-
text of specific regions or countries, such as Bangladesh (10) and the USA (10). The details are pre-
sented in the Appendix.

3. Thematic findings
After coding, our independent researchers (coders) developed a conceptual model following Jia
et al. (2018). Conceptual models with similar themes (drivers, barriers, mechanisms and outcomes)
have been developed by many SCM related literature reviews (e.g. Balasubramanian and Shukla
2017; Ghadge et al. 2020; Neri et al. 2018; Tseng et al. 2019). This section discusses the thematic
findings of sustainable leather SCM in detail: drivers, barriers (ex-ante and ex-post), mechanisms,
enablers and outcomes.

3.1. Drivers
External drivers largely influence the leather industry’s decision to implement the SCM (Belleau
et al. 2007). The internal drivers are also discussed. Moktadir et al. (2019) point out that the central
premise is the top-management commitment (Chen et al. 2021a), and their decisions are influenced
most by external factors (Moktadir et al. 2020c). Therefore, we adopt the institutional theory (Scott
2014) in analysing external factors for a sustainable leather supply chain and divide them into reg-
ulative, normative and cultural-cognitive pressures separately. In this way, a continuum can be
formed to cover the external drivers for sustainable leather SCM ‘from the conscious to the uncon-
scious, from the legally enforced to the taken for granted’ (Hoffman 2001), so the three drivers can
be interdependent and mutually reinforce.

Figure 5. Distribution of research methods.

8 X. CHEN ET AL.

3.1.1. Regulative pressures

Through the analysis of the reviewed articles, we notice that in recent years, many authority parties
have been developing environmental and ethical laws and regulations for the leather industry (de
Klerk, Kearns, and Redwood 2019; Mammadova, Behagel, and Masiero 2020), which significantly
influences the sustainable approach for the leather supply chain (Moktadir et al. 2020c). According
to Scott (2014), the regulative pillar involves constraining and regularising behaviour backed by the
authority. Hence, we classify regulative drivers into CE and labour standards legislation to effec-
tively discuss the sustainable leather SCM.

3.1.1.1. Legislation of circular economy (CE). The legislation for sustainable development and CE
significantly impacts the leather industry (De Marchi and Di Maria 2019; Moktadir et al. 2020c),
such as the Environment Action Plan and Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and
Council (Europe Commission 2014; Marconi et al. 2017). The increasingly stringent environmental
management regulations force the companies involved to incorporate sustainability principles (De
Marchi and Di Maria 2019; Marconi et al. 2017; Pasquali 2021).
However, the lack of legislation may also be a significant challenge for CE practices in the leather
supply chain (Uddin et al. 2019), such as the financial facility support (Moktadir et al. 2020a).

3.1.1.2. Legislation of labour standards. Policymakers in many economies have imposed labour
standards to ensure the safety and health of workers in the leather industry (Dwivedi, Agrawal,
and Madaan 2019; Quintero-Angel and Peña-Montoya 2020). Governments pressure the leather
supply chain because the leather industry is labour-intensive, acknowledging a poor working
environment (Dwivedi, Agrawal, and Madaan 2019).
Meanwhile, studies also notice that more up-to-date and flexible labour laws are needed to
develop the social sustainability of the leather industry (Dwivedi, Agrawal, and Madaan 2019; Sha-
faei, Shahriari, and Moradi 2009).

3.1.2. Normative pressures

According to our reviewed research, the economic prospect is an essential driver for adopting sus-
tainability in the leather industry (Korzeniewicz 1992; Mammadova, Behagel, and Masiero 2020),
especially in developing countries (Brautigam, Weis, and Tang 2018). Furthermore, standards
and appeals from professional leather organisations also encourage the implementation of sustain-
able approaches (LWG 2020; Rolling et al. 2021; Śmiechowski and Lament 2017). These call for a
discussion of the external drivers with moral legitimacy. As discussed above, in the institutional the-
ory, the normative pillar includes relevant standards and criteria set by professional institutions.
Also, normative pressures emphasise values and norms, including defining objectives and pursuing
ways (Scott 2014). Based on this theory, we discuss economic incentives, sustainable appeals and
standards from professional organisations in this section as normative drivers.

3.1.2.1. Economic incentive. As one of the essential industrial domains, the leather industry highly
contributes to regional economic growth (Moktadir et al. 2020a; Shafaei, Shahriari, and Moradi
2009). Leather products are popular worldwide and have attracted consumer interest due to
their quality and appearance, and the production and sales market has continued to expand in
recent years (Askarian-Amiri, Paydar, and Safaei 2021). Finished leather products, such as garments
and footwear, are the higher-earning product categories for the industry (Korzeniewicz 1992; Mok-
tadir et al. 2020d). Through sustainable product development, new marketing strategies and leather
products are expected to bring new market value and potential market shares (Brautigam, Weis,
and Tang 2018; de Klerk, Kearns, and Redwood 2019; De Marchi and Di Maria 2019).
On the other hand, cost reduction is a critical driver for pursuing a sustainable supply chain
(Zheng et al. 2021). Maintaining sustainability in the leather industry allows long-term partnerships
and lower costs (Jiang, Jia, and Gong 2018) because environmental costs, which occupy some of the
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 9

leather industry’s sales revenue, can also be reduced (Knutsen 2000). Sustainable approaches can
reduce the costs in the form of environmental taxes on capturing and pumping of water and waste-
water, waste air and other waste treatment (Jaegler 2016). Furthermore, the development of tech-
nologies may reduce the transaction costs (Brautigam, Weis, and Tang 2018) and the energy and
chemical costs (De Marchi and Di Maria 2019) in the leather production market.

3.1.2.2. Appeals from professional organisations. Many NGOs’ callings also encourage the leather
industry to perform sustainability (Jiang, Jia, and Gong 2018; Mammadova, Behagel, and Masiero
2020). They have put forward initiatives and campaigns that focus on environmental protection,
animal welfare and human rights (Hardy and Hauge 2019; Rolling et al. 2021). For example, the
Zero gross deforestation requirements were developed to pursue the zero illegal deforestation target
(Mammadova, Behagel, and Masiero 2020). Also, the largest animal rights organisation, People for
the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and a British NGO, i.e. the Food Animal Initiative, work
on animal welfare knowledge education (Jiang, Jia, and Gong 2018; Lee, Karpova, and Baytar 2019;
Rolling et al. 2021). Social Accountability International (SAI) was established in 1997 to advance
human rights at work (Śmiechowski and Lament 2017).
At the same time, normative pressures may affect regulative ones. For example, the criteria pro-
posed by the UN General Assembly for the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals have also prompted
some governments to impose requirements on their leather companies (Uddin et al. 2019).

3.1.2.3. Sustainable standards from professional organisations. Some professional NGOs propose
different sustainable standards, significantly impacting the leather supply chain. It is one of the most
intuitive signs to investors and consumers whether a company has been certified. In addition, some
products that comply with the certified production process can also be labelled to differentiate them
from other products.
Environmental standards are of lavish attention, represented by the International Organisation
for Standardization (ISO), an NGO that shares innovative and global knowledge and develops
international standards with experts (ISO 2022). In the leather industry, mainly larger companies
are certified for ISO. Śmiechowski and Lament (2017) also find that companies operating for more
than 20 years have largely introduced ISO. However, in some developing countries, manufacturers
of leather products such as footwear are not required to hold an environmental certification (Quin-
tero-Angel and Peña-Montoya 2020).
For human rights, the SA 8000 standard from SAI (2021) provides international criteria for
labour rights, working environments and management systems (Śmiechowski and Lament 2017).

3.1.3. Cultural-cognitive pressures

Understanding and awareness across society and social groups drive the leather supply chain
towards sustainability and CE (Moktadir et al. 2018b). Based on our reviewed articles, we conclude
that apart from the stakeholders’ pressures (COTANCE 2020), the leather industry has become a hot
spot as the world sees its risks and problems in the environment, human health, and safety along with
animal welfare (de Klerk, Kearns, and Redwood 2019; Dwivedi, Agrawal, and Madaan 2019; Paul
et al. 2021; Uddin et al. 2019). Such cultural-cognitive pressures are frequently contested at multiple
nested levels (Scott 2014). Thus, in this section, we introduce the cultural-cognitive drivers for sus-
tainable leather SCM within the common understandings and meanings in the society (Scott 2014).

3.1.3.1. Sustainability awareness of stakeholders. Sustainable practices in the leather industry can
help demonstrate corporate responsibility and enhance competitiveness (Marconi et al. 2017),
which are attractive conditions for investors and buyers (Shafaei, Shahriari, and Moradi 2009;
Uddin et al. 2019). At the country level, the leather industry in some developing countries tends
to follow sustainable manufacturing practices in developed countries (Dwivedi, Agrawal, and
Madaan 2019).
10 X. CHEN ET AL.

Also, the sustainable viewpoints of stakeholders are essential factors (Islam et al. 2018). Some
companies state that the buyer’s request and urging were critical for implementing sustainable
SCM, as merchants have Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) needs (De Marchi and Di Maria
2019). Moreover, fashion suppliers may be more likely than small businesses to be pressured by
influential buyers to produce sustainably (Quintero-Angel and Peña-Montoya 2020). Pressure
from customers and international markets has also brought about an epidemic of sustainable man-
ufacturing in the leather industry (Dwivedi, Agrawal, and Madaan 2019). Although most customers
have a positive emotional experience of the luxury and softness provided by leather products
because of their scarcity and high price (de Klerk, Kearns, and Redwood 2019; Kim 2021; Shin
and Jin 2021), there has been a growing shift in focus towards the green and sustainable aspects
of leather (de Klerk, Kearns, and Redwood 2019). Also, research finds that even status-seeking con-
sumers have a high propensity to buy faux fur clothing with a high level of imitation (Shin and Jin
2021). As a result, fashion brands may continue to produce such products.
With fundamental standard value perception, we also notice that different cultures influence
customers’ purchasing of leather goods (de Klerk, Kearns, and Redwood 2019; Korzeniewicz
1992; Rolling et al. 2021). However, it is essential to note that consumer preferences can change
unpredictably (Moktadir et al. 2021). Some exotic leather product producers are still seeking
ways to increase customers’ motivation to buy (Belleau and Nowlin 2001).

3.1.3.2. Environmental awareness. Though with pleasant economic contributions, the general pub-
lic has environmental and safety concerns about the leather industry, leading to implementing sus-
tainable practices (de Klerk, Kearns, and Redwood 2019; Islam et al. 2018; Moktadir et al. 2019).
After all, tanneries are listed as the Top Ten Toxic Industries (Śmiechowski and Lament 2017).
Take Bangladesh as an example; the country satisfied 10% of the world’s leather demand but ranked
second to last in the Environmental Performance Index 2018 (Moktadir et al. 2020a).
The primary concerns for the leather supply chain are resources & energy scarcity and pollution
(Dwivedi, Agrawal, and Madaan 2019; Marconi et al. 2017; Quintero-Angel and Peña-Montoya
2020). Water-related factors include the high demand for pure water and the hazards of discharging
effluent (Islam et al. 2018). The leather tanning process requires large amounts of pure water.
Besides, the energy breakdown is a potential risk for tanneries, especially in Europe, and there is
a need for developing renewable energy resources (COTANCE 2020).
One significant pollution is wastewater (COTANCE 2020). Using chromium salts as tanning
agents with pure water produces many organic and inorganic compounds, suspended solids, and
other heavy metals. The discharge of this wastewater into the sewage system without treatment
can lead to the destruction of river ecosystems and the generation of carcinogenic substances (Mok-
tadir et al. 2021; Uddin et al. 2019). Under this pressure, a tannery consortium in Italy built a water
treatment plant and a sewage system for tannery firms in the tannery district (De Marchi and Di
Maria 2019).
Other pollution includes solid waste increasing pressure on landfill sites (Dwivedi, Agrawal, and
Madaan 2019; Moktadir et al. 2021). Solid waste remains after the tanning process, including
trimmed wasted leather, shaving dust, etc. Even worse, more waste occurs in the sequential leather
goods production process, such as trimmed lining and packaging materials (Moktadir et al. 2020a;
Quintero-Angel and Peña-Montoya 2020).
In most existing practices, especially in developing countries, the produced waste from leather
manufacturing is not under appropriate treatment (Moktadir et al. 2020a), leading to concerns
about the leather supply chain (Mammadova, Behagel, and Masiero 2020).

3.1.3.3. Health & safety awareness. Although in a labour-extensive industry, Leather manufacturers
are recognised as ignoring and even suppressing workers’ rights (Hardy and Hauge 2019). As a
result, labour problems such as staff retention often affect the production of leather (Hardy and
Hauge 2019), especially in developing countries (Shafaei, Shahriari, and Moradi 2009), leading to
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 11

the need for the industry to tackle health and safety issues (Dwivedi, Agrawal, and Madaan 2019).
The health and safety management facility may reflect the green human resource management
(GHCM) in the tannery industry and is getting more attention (Moktadir et al. 2019).
In addition to the working environment, hazardous waste such as polluted water and nasty
smells generated by the leather industry can pose a lethal risk to public health (Dwivedi, Agrawal,
and Madaan 2019; Islam et al. 2018; Moktadir et al. 2021; Śmiechowski and Lament 2017). Hazar-
dous wastewater from leather production hurts humans and exceeds the limits set by the World
Health Organisation (WHO) (Karunanidhi et al. 2021).

3.1.3.4. Animal welfare awareness. Many social groups, represented by NGOs such as animal pro-
tection organisations and consumers, have concerns about animal cruelty in the leather industry
and the production of leather products and call for sustainable practices (COTANCE 2020; Lee,
Karpova, and Baytar 2019; LWG 2020). At the country level, the EU also considers animals to be
sentient beings and calls on member states to respect minimum animal welfare standards (Donnel-
lan 2018), working with NGOs such as World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) and Food and
Agricultural Organisation (FAO) (COTANCE 2020).
With the rise of vegetarian fashions, the acceptance of using alternative materials instead of ani-
mal products such as leather is on the rise, as they do not sacrifice the life of any animal (Shin and
Jin 2021). For luxury consumers, probably due to the propaganda of the animal rights movement,
young consumers (the millennial generation) tend to reject animal fur and turn to faux fur as a
more sustainable option (Rolling et al. 2021).
In addition, people also care about endangered animals. Although many fashion leaders, as well
as their followers, consider exotic leather, such as ostrich, emu and American alligator, to have
unique qualities and may lead to the positive trend of purchasing exotic leather products (Belleau
et al. 2007; Belleau and Nowlin 2001), a large portion of affordable American customers claim that
they would not purchase leather products made from endangered animals, with concerns about the
social acceptance (Summers, Belleau, and Xu 2006; Xu, Summers, and Belleau 2004).
Interestingly, de Klerk, Kearns, and Redwood (2019) find that consumers’ concerns about ani-
mal welfare, while strong, are mostly uninfluenced by activist groups.
In summary, several drivers (Table 2) contribute to the sustainable attempts in the leather supply
chain. Among the drivers, regulative pressures such as government regulations are generally con-
sidered important factors for adopting sustainable ideas in the leather supply chain to meet the
environmental and labour regulation, especially in developing countries (Grumiller 2021; Quin-
tero-Angel and Peña-Montoya 2020). However, according to some researchers, cultural-cognitive
drivers, such as social awareness and sustainability awareness of stakeholders, especially consumers’
attitudes (for leather brands and retailers), can indicate and affect economic prospects (normative
drivers) (Alfonso, Kalenatic, and López 2010; Belleau et al. 2007; Ferronato et al. 2021; Knutsen
2000; Lee et al. 2003, 2019; Rolling et al. 2021). As a result, cultural-cognitive pressures are some-
times acknowledged as important drivers for adopting sustainability in the leather supply chain.

3.2. Supply chain governance mechanisms toward sustainability

A global Value Chain (GVC) is a governance arrangement to utilise different parts of the value
chain and the nexus of related functions and operations of goods and services (Kano, Tsang, and
Yeung 2020). Such frameworks have been used to analyse the globalisation of production and its
impacts (Grumiller 2021). In general, the mechanisms for governing value chains can be divided
into three types: governance through chains, governance in chains and governance of chains
(Bush et al. 2015). Jia et al.’s (2020a) literature review discusses the first and third mechanisms
that govern soy supply chains, focusing on the external stakeholders’ shaping of the chains based
on firms’ practices and the lead firms or countries’ governance through the market access, provides
promising bases for this paper. In recent years, more attention has been paid to sustainable practices
12 X. CHEN ET AL.

Table 2. Drivers.
Drivers Description References
1 Regulatory pressures Environmental and ethical laws and regulations (de Klerk, Kearns, and Redwood 2019;
imposed on organisations by regulatory bodies. Mammadova, Behagel, and Masiero
2020)
1.1 Legislation of Circular The stricter legislation for sustainability and (De Marchi and Di Maria 2019)
Economy circular economy relevant to the leather
industry.
1.2 Legislation of labour The increased number of labour standards (Dwivedi, Agrawal, and Madaan 2019;
standards proposed by policymakers. Quintero-Angel and Peña-Montoya
2020)
2 Normative pressures Criteria, values and norms at moral legitimacy. (Scott 2014)
2.1 Economic incentive Economic goals and pursuing ways to a (Moktadir et al. 2020a; Shafaei, Shahriari,
sustainable leather supply chain. and Moradi 2009)
2.2 Appeals from NGO’s callings to encourage leather organisations (Jiang, Jia, and Gong 2018; Mammadova,
professional to perform sustainability. Behagel, and Masiero 2020)
organisations
2.3 Professional sustainable Sustainable standards proposed by professional (Śmiechowski and Lament 2017)
standards organisations.
3 Cultural-cognitive Overall social sustainable and ethical awareness (Moktadir et al. 2018b; Scott 2014)
pressures and understandings.
3.1 Sustainability awareness The pressures from stakeholders such as (Marconi et al. 2017; Uddin et al. 2019)
of stakeholders competitors and customers to conduct
sustainable practices.
3.2 Environmental Growing awareness of environmental concerns for (de Klerk, Kearns, and Redwood 2019;
awareness the leather supply chain. Islam et al. 2018)
3.3 Health & safety Increasing worries about health risks and worker (Dwivedi, Agrawal, and Madaan 2019;
awareness safety of the leather industry. Hardy and Hauge 2019)
3.4 Animal welfare More attention towards animal protection in (COTANCE 2020; Lee, Karpova, and
awareness society. Baytar 2019)

and standards in the form of initiatives of global value chains, which concern common sustainable
goals and can help improve efficiency in sustainable value chain governance (Jia et al. 2020a; Schou-
ten and Bitzer 2015). In this section, we present our findings on the global leather supply chain
development and discuss the sustainable leather supply chain governance mechanisms initiated
by international or national bodies in the following sections.
The leather supply chain has taken different paths of development in many countries. China,
Italy and Brazil are considered the most competitive countries in the leather industry (Shafaei,
Shahriari, and Moradi 2009). According to FAO (2022), China and Italy have the most significant
import values of hides and skins from 2015 to 2020, followed by Denmark, Korea and Thailand. In
terms of exportation, developed countries dominate the market: USA, Australia, Canada and some
EU countries (e.g. Denmark, Finland, France, Poland, Germany, Netherlands and Spain). However,
as mentioned in Figure 1, EU is not the main leather producing area; Brazil and many developing
countries have large leather production, while they have low export and import volumes in the glo-
bal leather market due to many reasons such as poor product quality and the lack of investment
(Gebrewahid and Wald 2017; Moktadir et al. 2018a). To improve the market value, the shift
from raw hides to semi-processed forms of production for finished leather and leather products
seems to be the transition direction for the leather industry in many countries. Today, countries
such as India produce almost exclusively finished leather and leather products (Muchie 2000).
Africa, especially Ethiopia and Kenya, has a considerable livestock wealth (Muchie 2000). The
total hides and skins production in Africa (8,785,397 tonnes) is second only to China’s from
2015 to 2020. However, hides and skins exports from the whole Africa account for only 2% of
the global hides and skins exports (FAO 2022). Some African countries such as South Africa
have a high level of domestic leather sales (de Klerk, Kearns, and Redwood 2019), while some report
the lack of competitiveness and foreign investments for exports (Hardy and Hauge 2019). In most
African countries, SMEs represent more than 90% of private businesses and over 50% of GDP
(Demeke and Chiloane-Tsoka 2015). Grumiller (2021) combines global production networks
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 13

(GPN) and institutional strategic coupling concepts to assess the relationship between Ethiopian
leather suppliers’ corporate strategies and industrial policy institutions. Grumiller (2021) and Brau-
tigam, Weis, and Tang (2018) find Ethiopia, with the most significant livestock herd in Africa, has
shifted its industry policy institutional strategy and escalated through changing collaborations and
conflicts. It used to supply mainly low-value leather to Italian tanneries; and export high-value
leather and end products to the US and Chinese markets (Grumiller 2021).
Public and private institutions regulate and coordinate activities with various instruments to gov-
ern supply chains, such as policies, guidelines and standards (Boström et al. 2015). The strategies and
criteria of the members in the leather supply chain in different countries influence each other. The
strategy of Chinese leather manufacturers has been conducive for the exportation of high-value pro-
ducts from countries like Ethiopia as it has offered reduced tariffs and increased wages (Grumiller
2021). In particular, the lower labour costs in developing countries compared to developed countries
have led to investment in their leather industry from domestic and international sources (Uddin et al.
2019). The United Nations, the USA, Italy, Germany, China and other countries provide assistance
such as sustainable technologies and financial support and international links to the leather industry
in Ethiopia in various forms (Brautigam, Weis, and Tang 2018).
Based on our reviewed research, a growing number of governance mechanisms focusing on sus-
tainability have also been developed. At an international level, sustainable leather agreements,
manifestos and standards have been proposed, such as the CITES international agreement, the
COP26 Leather Manifesto, and the ZDHC manufacturing restricted substances list (CITES 2022;
LWG 2020). In addition, in the regional/national context, regulations, sustainable leather pro-
duction projects and certifications have been developed in recent years, including Regulation
(EC) 1069/2009, Commission Regulation (EU) 142/2011, the green Leather Industry For the Environ-
ment (GreenLIFE) project and the SWITCH-Asia project (COTANCE 2020; SWITCH-Asia 2007).
In this study, we adopt the term supply chain governance instead of the global value chain
because of our focus on sustainability and our intention to contribute to operations and supply
chain management literature. Researchers agree that governance mechanisms can promote stan-
dards for achieving better SCM practices (Jia et al. 2020a; Zhu, Feng, and Choi 2017). In some
SCM studies, governance mechanisms can also be considered practices, in which key supply
chain participants create, maintain and transform network activities (Gimenez and Sierra 2013;
Raynolds 2004). Derived from the article we reviewed, we suggest that the leather supply chain gov-
ernance mechanisms toward sustainability can be categorised into two levels: international and
regional/national. Both levels of mechanisms will be discussed further.

3.2.1. International initiatives

Among the papers we reviewed, many of them mention the participation of non-profit organis-
ations and NGOs around the globe. They propose professional agreements and manifestos and
establish reliable, sustainable standards and labels for the leather supply chain.

3.2.1.1. Agreements and manifestos. International organisations play essential roles in calling for
sustainable improvements to the environment, animal welfare and other aspects related to leather
production. The following section discusses the initiatives relevant to the leather industry at the
international level.
With the growing awareness of sustainability, the United Nations proposed the 2030 Sustainable
Development Agenda in 2015, calling for international cooperation and action to improve the
world by 2030 (UN 2022). Leaders from different governments have agreed to 17 Sustainable Devel-
opment Goals (SDGs) as the heart of the agenda. It is important to recognise that eight of the 17
SDGs are relevant to the leather supply chain: Goal 3: Good Health & Well-Being, Goal 6: Clean
Water & Sanitation, Goal 8: Decent Work & Economic Growth, Goal 12: Responsible Production
& Consumption, Goal 13: Climate Action, Goal 14: Life Below Water, Goal 15: Life on Land and
Goal 17: Partnerships for the Goals (LWG 2020). As a result, many governments monitor and
14 X. CHEN ET AL.

pressurise the sustainable practices of the leather supply chain partners to meet the criteria of these
SDGs (Uddin et al. 2019). Some enterprises follow the trend and develop their sustainability agenda
and approaches (Jiang, Jia, and Gong 2018; Quintero-Angel and Peña-Montoya 2020). Practices
such as reverse logistics have become popular in this era (Moktadir et al. 2020d).
To protect the wild animals and plants and their survival in international trade, the CITES inter-
national agreement, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora, also known as the Washington Convention on the Protection of Animals, was signed
in 1973 and entered in force between governments from 1975 (CITES 2022). CITES provides legis-
lation framework bases for Parties and states that they have agreed to the convention to ensure its
implementation at the national level. According to the agreement, the trading and processing of
endangered species, including exotic leather, especially reptile leather, are prohibited. However,
the American alligator, which used to be the precursor to the CITES, has recovered as a species
thanks to the improved trade regulations and wildlife management and has been removed from
the endangered list (Belleau and Nowlin 2001). This change has perplexed many people because
it is different from what they have been educated (Summers, Belleau, and Xu 2006).
Before the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26), the Leather & Hide Council of
America (L&HCA) spearheaded over 30 international leather industry organisations to sign the
COP26 Leather Manifesto. This manifesto calls on the world leaders’ attention to natural fibres, includ-
ing leather, as alternatives to fossil fuels-based synthetic and recognised their power for sustainable
development and the ‘slow fashion’ idea (International Leather Organisations 2021). Go beyond stating
the efficient climate nature of natural fibres as part of the biogenic carbon cycle; these organisations also
accuse the ignorance and misunderstanding of the leather supply chain from the Life Cycle
Assessments, an approach for the environmental evaluation of a product at all lifecycle stages (Quin-
tero-Angel and Peña-Montoya 2020). In alignment with such opinions, the Global tanning industry
advocates that leather should be free from the livestock environmental burden (COTANCE 2020).
The Responsible Leather Initiative was formed by the Textile Exchange, an NGO with over 500
members from the global textile industry, and aims to drive the industry towards sustainable goals
(Textile Exchange 2018). The initiative’s outcome is the Responsible Leather Round Table (RLRT),
a platform bringing leather supply chain partners together to accelerate sustainable practices.
Brands that participate in this initiative with leather goods are considered to use responsible leather
in their production, with advanced animal welfare and fair labour treatment. Although Textile
Exchange is not-for-profit, many of the members who have joined the initiative are merchants
who sell leather goods and use it as a selling point.

3.2.1.2. Standards and labels. Research has shown that professional organisations developed inter-
national sustainable standards and labels in the leather industry, providing valuable references for
investors and customers. Along with the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO) stan-
dards introduced above, third-party certification bodies perform ISO certification and provide a
seal of approval for companies. Among the standards they published, ISO 9000 and ISO 9001 (qual-
ity management systems), ISO 9004 (sustained success), ISO 14001 (environmental management
systems), and ISO 45001 (social) are common reference standards employed in the leather industry
(COTANCE 2020; Śmiechowski and Lament 2017). It is also essential to recognise that ISO 14001 is
of high importance as a popular environmental management system (COTANCE 2020; Moktadir
et al. 2018b), yet performs poorly in Bangladesh because of the failure of the leather industry to hold
this certification (Islam et al. 2018).
In terms of international leather trading, traders in hides, skins and leather can use the Inter-
national Council of Tanners (ICT) Official Contract Forms agreed by the International Council
of Hides Skins & Leather Traders Associations (ICHSLTA) and the ICT. These organisations are
parts of the Global Leather Coordinating Committee (GLCC). On behalf of the leather industry
in 34 countries and over 50% of global leather production, ICT is also recognised for publishing
the International Glossary of Leather Terms as the international definition standards (ICT 2022).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 15

Leather Working Group (LWG) is an NGO that provides environmental audits and registration
for leather manufacturers and traders (LWG 2020). All its members have been examined with fun-
damental sustainable requirements (Pakistan Tanners Association 2020) and may be awarded three
certificate categories as environment-friendly (Śmiechowski and Lament 2017). Stakeholders may
quickly see an enterprise certified by LWG with environmental performance without effort; thus,
some international brands require LWG certification from potential suppliers (Pakistan Tanners
Association 2020). Enterprises holding ISO often receive prizes from LWG (Śmiechowski and
Lament 2017). Apart from LWG, the energy controlled leather (ECO2L) label also focuses on the
calculation and auditing model for the leather industry in the aspects of energy efficiency and
CO2 emission, developed by the German Leather Research Foundation (COTANCE 2020;
ECO2L 2022).
The Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals (ZDHC) programme drives leather firms toward
greener solutions (De Marchi and Di Maria 2019) by creating the Roadmap to Zero Programme
and the ZDHC manufacturing restricted substances list to ban the intentional use of harmful chemi-
cal substances in leather production (ZDHC 2020). Also, LWG provides free access for their mem-
bers to the ZDHC Gateway (LWG 2020). However, ZDHC is not immune from the data support
from the leather industry to ensure their relevance (COTANCE 2020); and small firms are not likely
to become ZDHC partners easily to make influential contributions (De Marchi and Di Maria 2019).
A good deal of attention is given to the Higg Index from Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC), a
coalition made up of over 250 leading fashion brands, retailers, suppliers and many other stake-
holders to reduce environmental impact and promote social justice for the fashion industry
(SAC 2021). The index is defined as a tool for the standardised measurement of value chain sustain-
ability; and the Higg Materials Sustainability Index (MSI) is used to compare the environmental
impact of materials. It is an essential but controversial index that negatively influences the leather
supply chain by giving poor scores. With concerns that SAC might be using inaccurate leather data
or misinterpreting leather, the leather industry had asked the SAC to suspend the score in 2020
(Leather UK 2020a).
The Leather Standard of OEKO-TEX, an international organisation consisting of 17 independent
research and test institutes in Europe and Japan, is a standardised testing and certification body for
leather at all production levels to ensure high human-ecological product safety (OEKO-TEX 2022).
It is not only in the certifications of Leather Standard but Made in Green, Standard 100 and Eco
Passport that OEKO-TEX plays its parts relevant to the leather supply chain (COTANCE 2020).
Circular labels on leather products show their sustainable performance. The cradle to Cradle
(C2C) system ensures and provides a global standard for safe, circular and responsibly made pro-
ducts across five categories: material health, product circularity, clean air & climate protection,
water & soil stewardship, and social fairness (C2C 2022). Similarly, the Global Recycle Standard
(GRS), initially developed by Control Union Certifications in 2008 and now belongs to Textile
Exchange, aims to increase the use of recycled materials (Textile Exchange 2021).
In summary, international organisations have worked on the sustainable development of the glo-
bal leather supply chain, while controversies still exist, and there is a need for a more unified sus-
tainable standard for the industry (Table 3).

3.2.2. Regional/national initiatives

There tend to be different leather initiatives that vary in countries and regions. This section divides
them into regulations, certifications, and projects led by different economies.

3.2.2.1. Regional regulations and certifications. It is widely recognised that the EU has developed
considerable regulations and standards for or highly relevant to the leather industry. Both the auth-
ority and NGOs play their roles in these activities. The European Commission (EC) has proposed
strategies, laws and standards. Aligned with the United Nations sustainable development goals, EU
Sustainable Development Strategy (EU SDS) was launched in 2001 and renewed in 2006 by the EC,
16 X. CHEN ET AL.

Table 3. Comparisons of reviewed international initiatives.

Established
Initiative Certification body year Objectives of the initiative Limitations
Agreements and manifestos
SDGs United Nations 2015 SDGs proposed sustainable criteria Some developing countries can
and called for international hardly meet the criteria.
cooperation and action.
CITES CITES 1975 This international agreement The survival status of some
provides legislation framework animal species has been
for Parties to protect the wild altered, leading to
animals and plants. inconsistencies in
understanding.
COP26 Leather International 2021 This manifesto states the The manifesto was signed by a
Manifesto leather industry sustainable importance of number of international
organisations leathers as alternatives to fossil leather industry organisations
fuels-based synthetic and LCA’s and has received no notable
misunderstanding of the leather international response.
supply chain.
Responsible Textile Exchange 2017 This initiative ensures the leather Many of the members who have
Leather enterprises joined have joined the initiative are
Initiative advanced animal welfare and fair merchants who sell leather
labour treatment. goods and use this as a selling
point.
Standards and labels
ISO ISO ISO standards contribute to the United Nations The leather industry in some
SDGs in the aspects such as quality, developing countries fails to
environmental, and health and safety. meet the ISO standards.
International ICT & ICHSLTA ICHSLTA and ICT provide official contract forms
Leather and professional leather terms for international
Contracts & leather traders in hides, skins and leather.
Definition
LWG& ECO2L LWG& ECO2L LWG and ECO2L focus on the environmental They are not complete
Audit Standards auditing for leather manufacturers and traders. assessments of the
sustainability of leather
products, as they do not
assess a number of social
issues.
ZDHC MrSL ZDHC The manufaturing restricted substance list Small enterprises are not likely
prohibits the intentional use of harmful chemical to become ZDHC partners.
substances in production.
Higg Material SAC Higg MSI compares the environmental influences The leather industry asked SAC
Sustainability of different materials to support sustainable to suspend the Higg Index for
Index material selection. leather because of the
concerns that they might use
inaccurate data or misconcept
leather.
OEKO-TEX OEKO-TEX This leather certification tests for high human-
Certification ecological product safety.
C2C Certificate & C2C Products These circular standards provide global standard
GRS Innovation for circular and responsibly made products.
Institute
Textile
Exchange

with a monitoring report based on the sustainable development indicators published every two
years (European Union and Eurostat 2015). Still, it has not been revised for years (the Federal Min-
istry Republic of Austria 2016). Although there is no specific EU legislation for it, leather, as an ani-
mal by-product, has been regulated through the Regulation (EC) 1069/2009 and Commission
Regulation (EU) 142/2011; the framework includes handling, collecting, processing and trading
of animal by-products (EC 2022). In addition, Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament
and the Council on industrial emissions (the Industrial Emissions Directive) transposed by the Mem-
ber States by 2013 restricts the harmful industrial emissions across the EU, especially through the
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 17

application of Best Available Techniques (BAT) (EC 2013). This directive significantly influences
the European leather industry due to its production drawbacks noted before (COTANCE 2020).
In terms of chemical management, The European Regulation stands for Registration, Evaluation,
Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) requires the leather supply chain to cooperate
and tackle the chemical risks (EC 2007). Moving to trading with developing economies, the Gen-
eralised Scheme of Preferences Leather (GSP) allows developing countries to export leather goods
to the EU at a lower rate of tariffs (EC 2012). Yet, many of them have been struggling to satisfy
the REACH requirement (Pakistan Tanners Association 2020).
EU also works with NGOs on sustainable rule development. The Leather Product Environmental
Footprint Category Rules (Leather PEFCR), as the results of the Confederation of National Associ-
ations of Tanners and Dressers of the European Community’s (COTANCE) participation in the
pilot phase of the EC initiative A Single Market for Green Products, were officially approved by
the Environmental Footprint Steering Committee in 2018. Such standards have contributed to
the calculation of the environmental footprint of leather, representing most of the trading leathers
in the world (Rosa-Giglio et al. 2018). There are also debates about the lifecycle responsibility of
leather between EC and the leather industry, as noted before; thus, the Leather PEFCR implemen-
tation has been distorted at some point (COTANCE 2020).
As a EU country with world-famous luxury leather products, Italy has promoted its leather cer-
tification body: the Institute of Quality Certification for the Leather Sector (ICEC), and benefits the
European leather industry (ICEC 2022). The certification is accredited to issue many leather stan-
dards, including ISO, occupational health and safety management system, and leather and origin
denomination certifications (COTANCE 2020).
The Leather & Hide Council of America (L&HCA), representing the whole American leather
supply chain, is a trade association formed in 2020 and a cooperator organisation under the U.S.
Department of Agriculture’s foreign market development programmes (L&HCA 2020). L&HCA
provides Standards Governing the Sale of North American Cattle Hides for its members and others
in need as a common understanding, with Spanish and Chinese versions. Despite this, the L&HCA
Hide and Skin Traceability Program performs as another certification for traceability by indepen-
dent audits. Facilities that meet the standards can be listed on a public Agricultural Marketing Ser-
vice website. It is also important to note that L&HCA’s view that leather is sustainable has sparked
controversy among society.
There is a trend that the wet-processing method has been disseminated to developing countries
such as Brazil (Knutsen 2000). This country has been the primary source of leather products,
especially footwear for the USA (Korzeniewicz 1992). To continue encouraging Brazilian leathers
in foreign markets, Brazilian Leather Certification of Sustainability (CSCB) applies the triple bottom
line of sustainability concept: economic, environmental and social terms, supported by the Brazilian
Leather Project (CSCB 2022). However, another sustainable approach, the Brazilian Forest Code for
protecting forests passed in 1965, has been discussed over the years and remains controversial due
to its changes in 2012 to allow amnesty and reduction of restoration requirements (Jia et al. 2020a).
As a result, concerns about the deforestation risk raised and leathers from Brazil and Paraguay may
be required and traced additionally (Jiang, Jia, and Gong 2018).
In short, although governments and NGOs have developed sustainable regulations and stan-
dards, enforcement and responsibility measurement are still challenging for the leather supply
chain. The details are listed in Table 4.

3.2.2.2. Projects/initiatives. Apart from regulations and certifications, some countries and regions
have developed different projects to support the leather supply chain in technology, education, and
finance contexts.
Many sustainable leather projects have been conducted within EU. The green Leather Industry For
the Environment (GreenLIFE) Project from 2014 to 2017 is an important case proposed by the EC to
develop innovative sustainable leather manufacturing techniques with five companies in the
18 X. CHEN ET AL.

Table 4. Comparisons of reviewed regional/national regulations and certifications.

Certification Established Geographical
Initiative body year coverage Objectives of the initiative Limitations
EU SDS European 2001 Europe As a mandatory Although the EU
Union framework, EU SDS aims Commission was urged
to achieve continuous to renew the EU SDS, the
improvement of quality revision hasn’t been
of life and provides implemented.
sustainable goals.
Regulation (EC) European 2009 Europe These two regulations set There is no specific
1069/2009 Commission out the framework for all legislation of leather in
Commission European 2011 Europe handling, collection, the European Union.
Regulation (EU) Union processing, and trading
142/2011 of animal by-products,
with the main principles
of safe sourcing,
handling and end-use.
Industrial European 2010 Europe This directive limits the The Directive has largely
Emissions Union harmful industrial restricted the
Directive emission across the development of the
European Union. high-emission European
leather industry.
REACH European 2007 Europe REACH requires chemical Many leather producers in
Commission risk management of the developing countries
leather supply chain. have failed to meet the
requirement.
GSP European 2012 Europe The scheme helps The GSP focuses only on
Commission developing countries the tariff dimension and
export their products to is subject to WTO law.
the European Union by
reducing tariffs.
Leather PEFCR COTANCE & 2018 Europe The rules standardise the The implementation has
European calculation of leather been distorted due to
Commission environmental footprint the not agreed
for most trading leathers environmental
globally. responsibility of leather.
ICEC ACCREDIA 1994 Europe (Italy) This leather certification These standards are mainly
body is accredited to used by Italian leather
issue many leather companies.
standards, including
quality and
environmental
management systems.
Standards L&HCA The USA This standard provides L&HCA’s view that leather
Governing the compilation and is sustainable has
Sale of North standardisation of terms sparked controversy.
American and practiced use in the
Cattle Hides leather industry for
North America.
Hide and Skin L&HCA The USA This certification
Traceability programme offers
Program independently certified
traceability for USA
hides and skins.
CSCB Brazilian Brazil CSCB provides economic, The certification has been
Leather environmental and negatively influenced by
Project social certification to the deforestation in the
encourage Brazilian bovine leather supply
leathers in foreign chains originating from
markets. Brazil.
Forest Code Brazilian 1965 Brazil The original Forest Code The regulation was
Government established legal reformed to allow
reserves and areas of amnesty and reduction
permanent protection of restoration
for Brazil’s forest. requirements, despite
fierce opposition by civil
society groups.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 19

Arzignano tannery district in Italy (De Marchi and Di Maria 2019). The project contributes to four
new liming/tanning processes of lower environmental footprint and EU sustainable legislation. A
second approach is the SWITCH-Asia programme, supported by the EU, to support sustainable pro-
duction and consumption patterns in Asian countries (SWITCH-Asia 2007). Seventeen of their grant
programmes belong to the Textile and Leather theme, helping countries like India, Mongolia, Nepal,
Pakistan, etc. The third case focuses on the competitiveness of smaller companies: the ELIIT (European
light industries innovation and technology) project in 2019 aims to bolster small and medium-sized
enterprises’ competitiveness in the textile, clothing, leather and footwear industries (EC-ELIIT 2019).
As an industry trade association, Leather UK also plays its part in the education and addressing
misinformation of relevant knowledge through the Leather UK Directory. The website provides a
directory, events, and training, and a UK consumer survey about leather is also published this
year (Leather UK 2022).
In short, governments and many other organisations have been helpful in improving sustainable prac-
tices through projects (Table 5). More effective approaches may increase the potential of their efforts.

3.3. Ex-ante barriers

The challenges for sustainable leather SCM lie in external and internal aspects. Several obstacles are
introduced in this section. We adopt Jia et al.’s (2018) classification of SCM obstacles: ex-ante bar-
riers which inhibit sustainable SCM implementation (before the event) and ex-post barriers that
constrain the persistence of sustainable SCM (after the fact), which are aligned with the ex-ante
and ex-post risks defined by economists (Jerant et al. 2013; Pauly 1968).

3.3.1. Restricted & unfair trading (external)

Instability in the business environment can lead to increased production risks (Shafaei, Shahriari,
and Moradi 2009). There are unfair and fettered transactions in the international leather supply
chain. Due to misunderstandings and prejudices (Gebrewahid and Wald 2017), the leather trading
policies of different economies have global influences. As a result of cultural differences, there are
misunderstandings in the global leather market. In terms of market information, companies in

Table 5. Comparisons of reviewed regional/national projects.

Certification Established Geographical
Initiative body year coverage Objectives of the initiative Limitations
GreenLIFE European 2014–2017 Europe GreenLIFE aimed to developed a The project only lasted for 3
Commission more sustainable leather years and in the Vicenza
manufacturing process, Tannery District in Italy.
sponsored by five companies
in Italy.
SWITCH- European 2007 Europe The project supports the
Asia Union transition of Asian countries
to a low-carbon, resource-
efficient and circular
economy, funded by the
European Union.
ELIIT European 2019 Europe The project aims to bolster small The eligibility criteria limit
Commission and medium-size enterprises’ the organisations must be
competitiveness in the established in only the EU
following industries: textile, or a COSME associated
clothing, leather and country.
footwear.
Leather UK Leather UK 2019 Britain A free platform for leather Lack of sufficient
Directory industry information provided information and
by Leather UK, a national resources.
leather trade association in
the UK.
20 X. CHEN ET AL.

many countries are constrained by information asymmetries and the product quality of developing
countries is often questioned (Gebrewahid and Wald 2017). Some countries, such as Brazil, suffer
from historical prejudices (Mammadova, Behagel, and Masiero 2020).

3.3.2. Lack of technology (internal)

One of the most critical intrinsic problems for the leather industry is technology. This problem exists
not only in developing countries but also in developed economies (Quintero-Angel and Peña-Mon-
toya 2020). For the former, insufficient support and the high cost of advanced technologies are
unaffordable (Muchie 2000; Uddin et al. 2019). For developed countries, the lack of attention and sup-
port for sustainable technologies in small and medium-sized enterprises (Śmiechowski and Lament
2017) and the fear that technological changes may lower the product quality (Knutsen 2000) can be
the main challenges. Also, the big brands are more likely to take the lead, although the key cleaner
production technology may be in the hands of obscure suppliers (De Marchi and Di Maria 2019).

3.3.3. Leather quality (internal)

Hide quality is critical in the leather industry (Korzeniewicz 1992; Shafaei, Shahriari, and Moradi
2009), especially in the luxury leather sector. However, few hides meet their requirements because
of the breed, transportation and slaughterhouse conditions, leading to the lack of qualified materials
in leather production (COTANCE 2020; Jaegler 2016).
Worse still, in the more underdeveloped areas where smallholder breeding and slaughtering live-
stock is common, it is even more challenging to obtain large quantities of good quality leather
(Brautigam, Weis, and Tang 2018).

3.4. Ex-post barriers

After applying sustainable practices, there are also impediments to sustainable leather SCM in the
long term, which can be more problematic.

3.3.1. Restricted & unfair trading (external)

Apart from short-term trading barriers, export and import restrictions still exist in the long term
(Gebrewahid and Wald 2017). Some countries raise export taxes to upgrade the value chain of tan-
neries, which can be resisted and protested against by other countries (Brautigam, Weis, and Tang
2018). The leather export policies in some countries, such as China, Argentina and Brazil, have
caused shortages of raw materials for European tanners (Jaegler 2016). Therefore, the EU advocated
withdrawing such restrictions with the World Trade Organisation (COTANCE 2020). Also, finished
leather products face barriers, including unfair high-import duties and undue labelling (Jaegler
2016), resulting in rising costs. However, reducing tariffs on imported products also entails a loss
of sales and profit for domestic industries (Khusainova and Vorozheykina 2019). Conversely, a
shortage of internal supply in some countries (such as Argentina) can happen if their leather produ-
cers are more willing to export their products for higher revenues (Korzeniewicz 1992). Therefore,
studies state the need for exportation support from governments (Gebrewahid and Wald 2017).

3.3.2. The pandemic (external)

The COVID-19 pandemic, since 2020, has generated a negative influence on the global leather
supply chain, especially for trading. Industry reports show a fall in leather demand, sales and
price decline in many countries due to the lockdown (Leather UK 2020b; L&HCA 2020; Pakistan
Tanners Association 2020). The leather auditing organisations are also affected and need to change
their operations (LWG 2020).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 21

3.3.3. Controversy of raw materials and industry responsibility (internal)

As discussed before, although the leather industry participated in calculating leather footprint and
gaining the approval of the EC, contradictions remain between them. Considering the nature of
leather as a by-product from slaughterhouses, the whole industry agrees that leather is collected
for recycling, so it should be free from the livestock footprint as ‘waste’. However, the EC holds
different views and requires the leather industry to be responsible for the animal lifecycle
(COTANCE 2020). Debates also come from the economic imbalance. Although the price of raw
hides has risen year on year, for tanneries working with slaughterhouses, especially in France,
the price of leathers has been only 5% of the price of meat for 30 years, supposedly to ensure
that slaughterhouses meet the standards (Jaegler 2016).

3.3.4. Lack of enforcement (internal)

Due to no authority for legislation based on ethical issues, the EU recognises a lack of enforcement
in animal welfare (Donnellan 2018). The union has been provided guidance and protocols but can-
not ensure the enforcement in different member countries. For example, some developing countries
have been reported for poor monitoring functions for sustainable practices (Islam et al. 2018).

3.3.5. Lack of technology (internal)

The lack of technology still exists in the long term, especially in developing countries. The main
reason for this is the financial issues and neglect by governments. Fierce competition increases
costs for tanners, which in turn reduces the funds available for technological upgrading (Knutsen
2000). Inadequate support and guidance from regulatory authorities lead to barriers, including
technology shortage (Moktadir et al. 2018a).
In sum, the lack of open and fair trading supports, such as financial and policy supports, are gen-
erally considered the most critical barriers (Gebrewahid and Wald 2017; Grumiller 2021; Maman,
Mahbubi, and Jie 2018; Moktadir et al. 2020a). At the same time, many researchers agree that
internal barriers such as leather quality and poor technologies are also critical challenges for the
development of the leather industry (Brautigam, Weis, and Tang 2018; Gebrewahid and Wald
2017; Jaegler 2016; Moktadir et al. 2018a).

3.5. Enablers (ex-post)

There also are enablers that can indirectly support the drivers and the implementations (Austin
2000; Masi, Day, and Godsell 2017; Sancha, Longoni, and Giménez 2015) in the leather supply
chain. Through the analysis of the reviewed literature, we realise that enablers in sustainable leather
SCM implementations originated mainly from the development of technologies (COTANCE 2020;
Gupta and Gupta 2019; Muchie 2000) and decision analysis methods (Moktadir et al. 2020b; Uddin
et al. 2019). Therefore, this section discusses two main supporters: technology and multiple criteria
decision analysis.

3.6.1. Technology
3.6.1.1. Cleaner production. The improvement of cleaner production techniques has effectively
implemented sustainable SCM in the leather industry (De Marchi and Di Maria 2019; Uddin
et al. 2019). Many studies notice that the efficiency of technologies such as wastewater treatment
is critical to LISC and can pose significant risks and affect business performance (Moktadir et al.
2021). For example, the design of a closed-loop integrated system can decrease the high level of
total dissolved solids of wastewater and make it reusable, saving the use of water and producing
fertiliser through the exchange of substances (Gupta and Gupta 2019). In addition to water conser-
vation, innovative technologies have reduced chemicals used in leather production (De Marchi and
Di Maria 2019).
22 X. CHEN ET AL.

In some countries, governments have taken the lead and supported the development and pro-
motion of cleaner production technologies, which have significantly improved product quality
and green certification (Muchie 2000). For example, India’s Central Leather Research Institute
(CLRI) successfully developed cleaner and near-zero-waste chrome-tanning technologies, resulting
in a high market share.
Also, new production technologies can provide materials for other applications. The extra recov-
ery of animal hair could be used for fertiliser production (De Marchi and Di Maria 2019).

3.6.1.2. Transparency. Transparency ensures the provision of standardised information to all value
chain members and evolves as an essential environmental governance element (COTANCE 2020;
Mammadova, Behagel, and Masiero 2020). Increased transparency and traceability are appropriate
tools for the supply chain (Marconi et al. 2017).
Traceability is essential for tracking the production of leather products (Karaosman et al. 2020).
It monitors material flows so that potential problems and hotspots can be identified and disclosed to
relevant stakeholders and consumers, contributing to the implementation of the sustainable SCM
(Mammadova, Behagel, and Masiero 2020; Marconi et al. 2017). However, there are obvious draw-
backs to the prevailing technology: tags with information barcodes may be lost, while micro-percus-
sions may damage animals’ health (Jaegler 2016). It is encouraging to see that many organisations
have already made some breakthroughs in this area. Through technological developments and
cooperation, IKEA has achieved traceability of all leather back to the slaughterhouse level (Jiang,
Jia, and Gong 2018).
In addition to technology, transparency mechanisms allow people to understand the causes and
legitimacy and raise awareness of vulnerable groups (Mammadova, Behagel, and Masiero 2020).

3.6.1.3. Leather alternatives. The development of leather substitutes has reduced the demand for
raw materials, i.e. rawhides. In addition to natural leather, the use of synthetic leather in leather
products such as car interiors is well established and has been positively evaluated by consumers
with its soft and smooth tactility (Kim 2021; Shin and Jin 2021). Additionally, biodegradable
alternatives can be more environmentally friendly than the current petroleum-based faux furs
(Rolling et al. 2021). However, research also points out the need to explore more types of leather
alternatives except for fur jackets, such as substitutes for apparel & interior fur products and
other animal products (Rolling et al. 2021).

3.6.2. Multiple criteria decision analysis

Several studies analyse the factors involved in the leather supply chain to provide better suggestions
for improvement for companies and the industry (Moktadir et al. 2019; Uddin et al. 2019). Among
those research, besides using case study alone, the Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) method,
a sub-discipline of Operations Research, is often used to evaluate decision options across multiple cri-
teria, often without a single optimal solution (Moktadir et al. 2019; Uddin et al. 2019; Zionts 1979).
Analytical hierarchy process (AHP), interpretive structural modelling (ISM) and decision-making
trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) are typical methods for MCDA (Uddin et al. 2019).
However, it cannot process ambiguous variables, so other methods are also used.

3.6.2.1. Key performance indexes (KPIs) analysis. The key Performance Index (KPI) can evaluate the
performance of organisations or projects. Choosing appropriate KPIs depends on the understanding
of organisations, and they are always associated with performance improvement (Chan and Chan
2004). Some literature has examined KPIs in the leather industry, offering suggestions for improving
operational performance (Dwivedi, Agrawal, and Madaan 2019; Moktadir et al. 2020b).
Best Worst Method (BWM), a quantitative tool that has been developed to explain complications
in MCDA, is used by Moktadir et al. (2020a) to determine the KPIs of a sustainable leather supply
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 23

chain, with advantages of time-saving and reliable results with a lower consistency ratio compared
to other MCDA techniques.
Hybrid methods are also used to analyse sustainable SCM practices. For example, Islam et al.
(2018) evaluate sustainable SCM practices with the fuzzy set theory to consider the fuzziness of
human perceptions, plotting a fuzzy importance and performance analysis matrix to provide an
easy measurement tool for managers. Also, based on the triple bottom line of sustainability, Dwi-
vedi, Agrawal, and Madaan (2019) also identify the KPIs for leather industries with an integrated
methodology of total interpretive structural modelling (TISM), Kappa analysis and Matriced
Impact Croises Multiplication Applique (MICMAC) analysis.

3.6.2.2. Barriers & risks analysis. Appropriate barriers and risks analysis may help stakeholders in
the leather supply chain to understand risk factors and develop proactive and efficient strategies.
AHP methods have been used in evaluating barriers (Moktadir et al. 2020d). A hybrid AHP-ELEC-
TRE-I framework is proposed by Uddin et al. (2019) to combine the strength of both techniques and
identify green leather SCM barriers, attracting foreign direct investment (FDI). Also, a study analyses
the risks related to sustainable SCM in the leather industry with an integrated approach (Moktadir
et al. 2021). In addition to using BWM alone to study the challenges (Moktadir et al. 2020a), the Par-
eto tool can help distinguish between essential and non-important factors without complexity. There-
fore, Moktadir et al. (2021) use a Pareto-based BWM to rank the related risk factors.
In addition to KPIs and risks, Moktadir et al. (2019) also study the critical success factor for the
leather supply chain (Moktadir et al. 2020c) and antecedents for adopting green human resource
management in the tanning industry supply chain with the total ISM (TISM) technique.
Also, other methods and factors are used. Gebrewahid and Wald (2017) study the export barriers
with factor analysis and multidimensional scaling (MDS) techniques. And structural equation mod-
elling (SEM), the combination of factor analysis and multiple regression analysis, is also used for
relationship analysis, such as the relationships among affective variables affecting leather product
tactile satisfaction (Kim 2021).

3.6. Outcomes
In the reviewed articles, sustainable practices, including responsible production and consumption,
with strategies such as Eco-design, cleaner production, environmental distribution and sale and
reverse logistics (RL) (Quintero-Angel and Peña-Montoya 2020), can generate economic, environ-
mental and social outcomes in the leather supply chain (Table 6). This classification summarises the
outcomes in current sustainable leather SCM literature (Amicarelli, Fiore, and Bux 2021;
COTANCE 2020; Moktadir et al. 2021) and is also in line with the triple bottom line of the sustain-
able SCM framework from management research (Carter and Rogers 2008; Zhu et al. 2022).

3.6.1. Economic outcomes

3.6.1.1. Costs reduction. One important positive outcome of sustainable SCM is the reduction of
total costs (De Marchi and Di Maria 2019). The improved production process uses less water
and chemicals to improve cost-effectiveness (De Marchi and Di Maria 2019). Also, scale economies
(concentrated locations) and economies of specialisation by improved logistics systems can lower
costs (Muchie 2000; Yazan, Petruzzelli, and Albino 2011; Zhu et al. 2022).

3.6.1.2. New market value & market share. The sustainable leather supply chain can create a new
market. The economic features of new products also indicate the expansion of product range and
higher values (De Marchi and Di Maria 2019). Some consumers are willing to pay more for
environmental innovation (Knutsen 2000). For some developing countries, meeting the environ-
mental requirements improves the quality of their products and expands the international markets
(Muchie 2000). Also, working with other industries can provide entrance to the new and global
24 X. CHEN ET AL.

Table 6. Outcomes.
Outcomes Description References
1 Economic outcomes
1.1 Costs reduction The improved sustainable leather supply (De Marchi and Di Maria 2019)
chain reduces the total costs.
1.2 New market value & market New market values and market share come (De Marchi and Di Maria 2019; Knutsen
share with innovative products. 2000)
1.3 International win-win Cooperation between countries brings win- (Brautigam, Weis, and Tang 2018;
cooperation win economic benefits. Demeke and Chiloane-Tsoka 2015)
2 Environmental outcomes
2.1 Reduction of resources & The consumption of energy and resources has (Jiang, Jia, and Gong 2018;
energy consumption been reduced Mammadova, Behagel, and Masiero
2020)
2.2 Reduction of pollution Pollution from the leather industry has been (Gupta and Gupta 2019; Islam et al.
reduced with sustainable approaches. 2018)
3 Social outcomes
3.1 Labour rights Workers’ rights and safety have been secured. (Hardy and Hauge 2019; Khusainova
and Vorozheykina 2019)
3.2 Animal welfare More animals are under protection and social (Donnellan 2018; Rolling et al. 2021)
responsibility has grown.

market (De Marchi and Di Maria 2019). Diversified and more ecological sales channels can also
help companies expand their market shares (Askarian-Amiri, Paydar, and Safaei 2021).

3.6.1.3. International win-win cooperation. Cooperation in the leather industry between countries
brings win-win economic benefits. The leather industry in some developing countries, such as
growing rawhide and leather manufacturers, receives support from developed countries and mature
leather producing countries through technical, financial and other assistance (Brautigam, Weis, and
Tang 2018; Demeke and Chiloane-Tsoka 2015). As a result, along with the improved production
capacity and quality, the producers have received contracts or investments from enterprises in
some developed countries and have achieved a win-win situation (Muchie 2000).

3.6.2. Environmental outcomes

3.6.2.1. Reduction of resources & energy consumption. Through the sustainable efforts of leather
supply chain members, the consumption of energy and resources in production and distribution
has been significantly reduced. One EC-lead project, the GreenLIFE project, succeed in reducing
70% use of water and 20% of sodium hydrosulphide in the first stage of leather production (De
Marchi and Di Maria 2019). Such performances appear in the private sector as well. At the end
of 2016, 100% of IKEA’s leather came from sustainable leather raw materials and water consump-
tion was significantly reduced (Jiang, Jia, and Gong 2018). The Zero Deforestation strategy is con-
sidered successful in protecting the forests (Mammadova, Behagel, and Masiero 2020).
However, research also reveals that some businesses (e.g. women’s leather footwear by small and
medium enterprises) have not received sufficient attention and poorly comply with environmental
legislation (Quintero-Angel and Peña-Montoya 2020).

3.6.2.2. Reduction of pollution. With the implementation of sustainable practices, pollution from the
leather industry has been reduced (Muchie 2000; Singh and Gundimeda 2021). Applying new tech-
nologies helps the leather supply chain perform more environmentally friendly. Recycled water tech-
nology can reduce effluent discharge (Gupta and Gupta 2019; Islam et al. 2018). Also, in terms of
other pollution, the innovation of chrome-free leather technology generates near-zero-waste (Muchie
2000); and new technologies also reduce several pollutants such as sulfides and Volatile Organic Com-
pounds (VOC) compared with traditional techniques (COTANCE 2020; De Marchi and Di Maria
2019). Moreover, appropriate supply chain design and infrastructure can improve waste management
(Uddin et al. 2019). Geographical concentration in the leather industry allows a shared effluent
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 25

reduction (Muchie 2000). The inevitable waste can be reused or recreated into other products such as
accessories, and the remaining waste can be donated to saddlers or artisans (Quintero-Angel and
Peña-Montoya 2020). Moreover, choosing an eco-friendly package and component suppliers for
finished leather products improves environmental performance (Marconi et al. 2017).
The leather industry can improve environmental awareness. Sustainable partners in the leather
supply chain are recognised as socially responsible. Qualified tanneries may obtain sustainable
labels after involving sustainability in their production and decision processes and verifying their
contribution to achieving sustainable goals (Jaegler 2016). Some luxury brands gain social acknowl-
edgement by positioning themselves as sustainable luxury leaders (de Klerk, Kearns, and Redwood
2019). Many companies provide eco-labelling products to the users to show the product environ-
mental information (Marconi et al. 2017). Moreover, training and education activities towards the
society improve overall sustainable awareness (Jaegler 2016; Jia et al. 2020b).

3.6.3. Social outcomes

3.6.3.1. Labour rights. More workers’ rights have been secured by developing sustainable practices
(De Marchi and Di Maria 2019). Workers’ safety and satisfaction have become two significant per-
formance indicators for the leather industry (Moktadir et al. 2020b). To attract workers and allevi-
ate their concerns, firms provide social infrastructure such as housing, healthcare and children
education facilities (Khusainova and Vorozheykina 2019). Also, the growing power of worker
agencies helps workers push their companies to improve their rights and ensure the implemen-
tation of international labour standards (Hardy and Hauge 2019). Most workers now have a healthy
working environment and have been trained in a culture of safety (Jiang, Jia, and Gong 2018).

3.6.3.2. Animal welfare. Social responsibility for the welfare of animals is gradually becoming the
social norm (Rolling et al. 2021). Most EU citizens acknowledge and support animal welfare laws
within the EU (Donnellan 2018). Also, most customers care about social acceptability and are less
likely to buy exotic leather products made of endangered animals (Summers, Belleau, and Xu 2006;
Xu, Summers, and Belleau 2004). Those who support and purchase faux animal fur products can
gain a sense of psychological comfort (Rolling et al. 2021). Besides, some slaughterhouse workers
have also been introduced to the knowledge of animal welfare and are required to ensure animal
welfare with the cooperation of NGOs and enterprises (Jiang, Jia, and Gong 2018).
However, there are still many problems with the leather industry’s animal welfare, and more
related knowledge is needed (Lee, Karpova, and Baytar 2019). With the development of wildlife
management, animals such as American alligators are no longer endangered and regarded as
renewable resources in some research (Belleau and Nowlin 2001). For animal welfare protection,
the difficulty also lies in legal recognition and enforcement monitoring (Donnellan 2018). Also,
some customers only consider price and the pleasure that comes from spending on luxury goods
rather than ethical issues (de Klerk, Kearns, and Redwood 2019).
The sustainability proposal also brings some uncertainties. For example, as discussed earlier, the
Zero Deforestation commitments have struggled to achieve consistency in social and labour stan-
dards and land rights and require the involvement and support of many parties (Mammadova,
Behagel, and Masiero 2020). The summary of outcomes is listed in Table 6.
There might be a trade-off between economic and environmental performances. For example,
the economic benefits from scale economics can be achieved by redesigning the supply chain
and more greenhouse gas emissions, mainly due to the increasing traffic loads (Yazan, Petruzzelli,
and Albino 2011). Also, the upgrading of both should be discussed together. The extra environ-
mental costs can be absorbed by more efficient raw materials & energy use and less pollution (Knut-
sen 2000). Suppliers may also ask for higher prices for new environmental techniques and products
from their clients to raise costs for others (De Marchi and Di Maria 2019; Knutsen 2000).
26 X. CHEN ET AL.

4. An integrated conceptual framework

This section proposes an integrated conceptual framework based on the above review and discus-
sions. As shown in Figure 6, from left to right, drivers denote three kinds of ex-ante drivers/press-
ures that encourage the transformation to sustainability in the leather industry. We categorise them
with Scott’s (2014) three institutional pillars: regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive. The reg-
ulative pressures point to the legislation relevant to the leather supply chain, while normative dri-
vers specify professional standards and goals and ways to achieve them. Cultural-cognitive
pressures focus on the social culture and values.
Barriers (ex-ante and ex-post) refer to the negative challenges to implementing sustainability in
the leather supply chain. Our model adopts Jia et al.’s (2018) classification for ex-ante and ex-post
barriers. Ex-ante ones might be eliminated during the sustainable processes, yet ex-post barriers are
critical and may remain existing in the long term. Some obstacles, such as limited and unfair trading
due to prejudice and misunderstanding, poor leather quality, and technology shortage, may be
eliminated by developing sustainable practices. However, some challenges can be hard to tackle,
including political issues, the pandemic, and intrinsic problems listed in Figure 6.
Affected by drivers and barriers, mechanisms, including international and regional/national
initiatives, have been conducted by governments and other organisations. Global initiatives consist
of agreements and manifestos and professional standards and labels. Similarly, at the regional level,
different regulations and certifications have been proposed, along with projects improving the sus-
tainability of the leather industry. The proposed model also points out the linkage between inter-
national and regional mechanisms (e.g. Italian leather standards include the global ISO standards
and are also accepted by other EU countries). Based on the above discussion, we also found that the
leather industry in developing countries has received support from developed economies (e.g. EC’s
SWITCH-Asia project has developed 17 leather projects for Asian developing countries).
Enablers (ex-post) accelerate the progress towards a sustainable goal. Technology and multiple cri-
teria decision analysis studies provide insight and easier access for the leather industry to enhance their
sustainable strategies for better outcomes, which are at the right of the graph. We use the triple bottom

Figure 6. Conceptual framework.

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 27

line to measure sustainability performance: economic, environmental, and social aspects. However, the
social outcomes are from both sides. It is worth noting that the younger generation of consumers (such
as millennials and university students), who grew up in and were influenced by the rise of the animal
rights movement, is also the main consumers of leather products, so they are likely to support sustain-
able leather products (Lee, Karpova, and Baytar 2019; Rolling et al. 2021). However, research finds that
leather goods are always considered with better quality, so many consumers have a higher than average
willingness to purchase them (de Klerk, Kearns, and Redwood 2019). And still, a large number of cus-
tomers think highly of luxury leather goods as products symbolising personal status and underestimate
their environmental impacts (de Klerk, Kearns, and Redwood 2019).

5. Discussion
Following the above thematic analysis based on our literature review, we provide some directions for
future studies; and provide suggestions for policymakers and stakeholders in the leather supply chain.

5.1. Future research directions

Based on our review, the leather SCM has been focusing on sustainability issues (De Marchi and Di
Maria 2019; Knutsen 2000). However, among our 50 academic articles, only 37 (33 on leather, 4 on
slaughterhouses) of them discuss the sustainable practices or concerns about the leather/meat
supply chain, the remains (26%) concern the leather trading competitiveness and sales (Shafaei,
Shahriari, and Moradi 2009; Summers, Belleau, and Xu 2006). Sustainable leather SCM should
receive more attention as a promising and influential topic. This literature review has identified sev-
eral research gaps for sustainable leather SCM studies and suggests future research directions.
First, learning and adopting appropriate cleaner production technologies at low cost is an impor-
tant topic. Several studies mention the high price of advanced technologies, especially in developing
countries, as a prominent barrier to the leather industry moving towards sustainable development.
However, few articles investigate an effective way to obtain cleaner production in leather SCM, for
example, introducing a green strategy directly into the production system (Uddin et al. 2019), col-
laborating between small and medium-sized firms (Tuffa Birru 2011), and applying for targeted
support projects from developed economies (EC-ELIIT 2019; SWITCH-Asia 2007) to improve
the performance of cleaner production. Therefore, we suggested that more studies focus on this
direction because it is fundamental to achieving sustainable performances.
Second, most research on leather SCM has a geographic focus. We find that most of the reviewed
research concentrate on several countries (Appendix), represented by Bangladesh (10 articles) and
the USA (10 articles), followed by Italy (6) and Ethiopia (5). However, the central leather trading
countries include the USA, China, France, Germany, Italy, and Korea (FAO 2016), and studies
in these countries are limited. Hence, we suggest that leather SCM in other countries could be a
valuable future research direction because it is embedded in the global leather supply chain. More-
over, the variation between different economics is also an interesting topic and can provide insights
into sustainable SCM (Karaosman et al. 2020). For example, the status of trade unions varies from
country to country. Legal policy and regulations relating to the leather industry are being reshuffled
following the UK’s departure from the EU (Donnellan 2018). In developing economies, such as
Ethiopia, their position is relatively weak in the global supply chain, i.e. they are constrained by
enterprise and the state, making it difficult and untrustworthy for them to speak up for workers
(Hardy and Hauge 2019); and inadequate infrastructure development has hindered the develop-
ment of the leather industry (Brautigam, Weis, and Tang 2018). We noticed that cross-country
comparison studies, such as comparing the value-added leather chain in India, Kenya and Ethiopia
(Muchie 2000), are rare and are proposed as a future research direction.
Third, improving the credibility of the leather alternative is an essential solution. Based on the
literature reviewed, we have found that for many customers, in addition to the perception of good
28 X. CHEN ET AL.

quality that luxury leather products bring, ordinary leather products, especially exotic ones (Belleau
and Nowlin 2001), are also generally perceived to be of a higher or unique quality compared to pro-
ducts made of other materials (de Klerk, Kearns, and Redwood 2019). Therefore, apart from leather
alternatives, there is also a research gap for future research to focus on how to improve the accep-
tance of these products to expand the market and stimulate more manufacturers to produce them.
Fourth, studies capture the difficulties of sustainable leather SCM; yet few seek long-term sol-
utions. For example, building a more positive national image may help improve the reputation
overseas (Gebrewahid and Wald 2017), and better leather quality can be reached through upgrading
technologies (Khusainova and Vorozheykina 2019). Nonetheless, solutions for ex-post barriers are
left out of the story. Although pointing out the lack of government supports for exporting leather
(Gebrewahid and Wald 2017), the lack of monitoring (Dwivedi, Agrawal, and Madaan 2019), and
the unclear responsibility of leather in the life cycle (COTANCE 2020), the literature we reviewed
do not suggest viable solutions to these issues. Hence, it is important for future research to tackle
these impediments for improving sustainable performance (Chen et al. 2021b).
Fifth, as the upstream of the leather supply chain, slaughterhouses should also receive attention.
As leather is a by-product of slaughtering animals, reducing or eliminating the use of leather will
result in a waste of material if animal slaughter is not reduced (Lee, Karpova, and Baytar 2019).
The meat sector also seeks sustainable and circular solutions and less waste (Bowman et al. 2012;
Ferronato et al. 2021; Kayikci, Ozbiltekin, and Kazancoglu 2019). The question of what is the link-
age between slaughterhouses and the leather supply chain remains unanswered.
Finally, the reviewed articles focus on research methods of survey, interview, modelling and case
study, while secondary data analysis (9%) is less adopted (Figure 5). We also notice that 17 out of
our reviewed academic papers use two methods, 12 adopt three tools in their studies, and more than
50% of our 54 papers adopt more than one research method. Therefore, future studies might apply
multiple methods and make use of secondary data analysis.

5.2. Managerial implications

Based on our reviewed papers, the leather supply chain in different economies varies greatly. From
the government’s and NGOs’ perspectives, both social value guidance and related standards devel-
opment are essential.

(First) Appropriate environmental information can help influence the understanding and pur-
chase choices of people in society and help them increase their sustainability awareness
(de Klerk, Kearns, and Redwood 2019; Tijani and Ajayi 2016). Reviewed literature mention
that, at least in some places (e.g. South Africa), consumers are less aware of the specific
negative environmental impacts of the leather industry (de Klerk, Kearns, and Redwood
2019). In terms of animal welfare, animal rights advocates’ campaigns prove to have a sub-
stantial impact on consumers (Lee, Karpova, and Baytar 2019). Customers may learn more
about animal welfare with a sense of responsibility, and then they can make environmen-
tally friendly purchases and stimulate the development of the eco-friendly product market
(Rolling et al. 2021). Also, the close association of leather apparel products with fashion
(Belleau and Nowlin 2001) helps fashion leaders influence their followers’ shopping prefer-
ences. At the same time, it is essential to note that the pursuit of so-called ‘environmental
protection’ can have a negative impact on local livelihoods (Mammadova, Behagel, and
Masiero 2020).
(Second) The management of the leather enterprises and marketing orientation is a valuable
action. The revenue expectations of genuine leather products make businesses more will-
ing to produce and encourage customers to buy them. As a result, the producers and sell-
ers of fashion products are more focused on promoting the functions and benefits of
leather products and enhancing their acceptance by the general public (Lee, Karpova,
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 29

and Baytar 2019) instead of making their products sustainable. On the marketing side, as
most young people are aware of fashion information in the media, especially on the Inter-
net (Belleau et al. 2007), they may develop sustainable consumer behaviour through
information on such social media.
(Third) Clear standards and effective supervision can help improve the leather quality (Demeke and
Chiloane-Tsoka 2015). The lack of an adequate monitoring system can be problematic for
ensuring the sustainability of the leather supply chain. Governments may work with
NGOs and other countries to develop unified and reasonable monitoring and enforcement
systems to tackle this. They can also invite improvement of the standards in the leather
industry.
(Fourth) Developing positive import and export legislation is essential for developing the leather
industry. In developing countries, governments can learn the successful globalisation
route from developed economics to help their enterprises, especially small and med-
ium-sized enterprises (Demeke and Chiloane-Tsoka 2015).

For leather manufacturers, they can seek solutions to sustainable development from the follow-
ing suggestions.

(First) As a labour-intensive industry (Brautigam, Weis, and Tang 2018), the leather industry
should upgrade the well-being of workers to cope with the high labour turnover rate
and improve productivity (Dwivedi, Agrawal, and Madaan 2019; Khusainova and Vor-
ozheykina 2019). While ensuring a safe production environment and better employee
well-being, they need to improve workers’ salaries and support the labour unions, con-
sidering their relatively weak position in some countries (Hardy and Hauge 2019).
(Second) Sustainability and high consumer willingness to buy (WTB) can be achieved simul-
taneously. Instead of increasing the acceptance of leather products, businesses can compre-
hensively cater to the customers’ demands to improve their WTB. Social acceptance,
subjective norms, personality traits, and education are essential determinants in purchasing
sustainable leather products (Xu, Summers, and Belleau 2004). Many customers have made
sustainability an important principle. Many companies and researchers may not be aware
of the benefits of leather alternatives but instead focus on how to increase the propensity of
consumers to buy leather products (Belleau et al. 2007; Lee, Karpova, and Baytar 2019).
(Third) Raw material quality and animal welfare can be achieved to a certain extent simultaneously.
Upgrading animal breeding facilities and conditions can contribute to better breed develop-
ment, improved disease resistance and, ultimately, the quality of hides and skins (Khusai-
nova and Vorozheykina 2019). To improve the quality of hides, a charter of CWD, a
luxury brand, provides subsidies if breeders choose electric wire instead of barbed wire.
The breeders also signed that they must ensure the health of their breeding stock (Jaegler
2016).
(Fourth) Consider CE strategies. Use a cluster approach or supply chain member cooperation to
improve efficiency and utilisation, reduce costs and improve environmental benefits
(Khusainova and Vorozheykina 2019). The companies involved can also improve their
environmental performance by choosing more eco-friendly partners or materials (Mar-
coni et al. 2017).

6. Conclusions
In this paper, we studied the sustainable leather supply chain through a systematic review of the
existing research. We then identified a number of themes: drivers, barriers, practice, enablers
30 X. CHEN ET AL.

and outcomes of leather supply chain governance. We proposed an integrated conceptual frame-
work based on the themes and described their relationships. Finally, we discussed the managerial
implications and provided future research directions.
This research makes some contributions to the field. First, it is likely to be the first comprehen-
sive and systematic literature review to study sustainable leather supply chains. Second, our discus-
sion of the leather governance mechanisms at international and regional/national levels, together
with our conceptual framework, can help deepen the understanding of the sustainable leather
supply chain. Finally, we provide suggestions and insights for future studies.
However, as always, there are also limitations in this study. The major constraint is the academic
paper selection process, in which we only selected English published articles from databases and the
internet, yet studies in other languages may contribute to our topic. In addition, as new leather pol-
icies, standards and projects emerge, governance mechanisms may need to be updated in the future.

Disclosure statement
The authors (Xiaowei Chen, Linqi Xu, Zhou Ren, Fu Jia, Yiqi Yu) certify that they have NO affiliations with or invol-
vement in any organisation or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation
in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert
testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relation-
ships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Data availability statement

This is a literature review paper based on academic papers selected from academic databases, so there is no data avail-
ability issue.

Funding
This research was supported by The Ministry of Education of Humanities and Social Science Project “Construction
Strategy of ‘Human-land Symbiosis’ in Rural Communities from the Perspective of Three-industry Convergence”
(21YJAZH007), the Scientific Research Foundation of Zhejiang Sci-tech University (21052320-Y) and the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (51908498).

References
Akram, K., A. Saeed, S. Bresciani, S. U. Rehman, and A. Ferraris. 2022. “Factors Affecting Environmental
Performance during the Covid-19 Period in the Leather Industry: A Moderated-Mediation Approach.” Journal
of Competitiveness 14 (1): 5–22. doi:10.7441/joc.
Alfonso, E., D. Kalenatic, and C. López. 2010. “Modeling the Synergy Level in a Vertical Collaborative Supply Chain
Through the IMP Interaction Model and DEA Framework.” Annals of Operations Research 181: 813–827. doi:10.
1007/s10479-010-0694-1.
Amicarelli, V., M. Fiore, and C. Bux. 2021. “Hidden Flows Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector: Evidence from the
Italian Beef System.” British Food Journal 123: 384–403. doi:10.1108/BFJ-05-2021-0547.
Appala, V. N. S. G., N. N. Pandhare, and S. Bajpai. 2022. “Biorefining of Leather Solid Waste to Harness Energy and
Materials – a Review.” Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery 112: 49. doi:10.1007/s13399-022-02455-8.
Askarian-Amiri, F., M. M. Paydar, and A. S. Safaei. 2021. “Designing a Dual-Channel Supply Chain Network
Considering Dependent Demand and Discount.” RAIRO - Operations Research 55: S2325–S2347. doi:10.1051/
ro/2020079.
Austin, J. E. 2000. “Strategic Collaboration Between Nonprofits and Businesses.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly 29: 69–97. doi:10.1177/0899764000291S004.
Balasubramanian, S., and V. Shukla. 2017. “Green Supply Chain Management: An Empirical Investigation on the
Construction Sector.” Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 22: 58–81. doi:10.1108/SCM-07-
2016-0227.
Belleau, B. D., and K. Nowlin. 2001. “Fashion Leaders’ and Followers’ Attitudes Towards Exotic Leather Apparel
Products.” Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal 5: 133–144. doi:10.1108/
EUM0000000007284.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 31

Belleau, B. D., T. A. Summers, Yingjiao Xu, and R. Pinel. 2007. “Theory of Reasoned Action: Purchase Intention of
Young Consumers.” Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 25: 244–257. doi:10.1177/0887302X07302768.
Boström, M., A. M. Jönsson, S. Lockie, A. P. J. Mol, and P. Oosterveer. 2015. “Sustainable and Responsible Supply
Chain Governance: Challenges and Opportunities.” Journal of Cleaner Production 107: 1–7. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.
2014.11.050.
Bowman, M. S., B. S. Soares-Filho, F. D. Merry, D. C. Nepstad, H. Rodrigues, and O. T. Almeida. 2012. “Persistence of
Cattle Ranching in the Brazilian Amazon: A Spatial Analysis of the Rationale for Beef Production.” Land Use
Policy 29: 558–568. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.09.009.
Brautigam, D., T. Weis, and X. Tang. 2018. “Latent Advantage, Complex Challenges: Industrial Policy and Chinese
Linkages in Ethiopia’s Leather Sector.” China Economic Review 48: 158–169. doi:10.1016/j.chieco.2016.06.006.
Bush, S. R., P. Oosterveer, M. Bailey, and A. P. J. Mol. 2015. “Sustainability Governance of Chains and Networks: A
Review and Future Outlook.” Journal of Cleaner Production 107: 8–19. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.019.
C2C. 2022. What is Cradle to Cradle Certified®? – Get Certified – Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute [WWW
Document]. Accessed February 21, 2022. https://www.c2ccertified.org/get-certified/product-certification.
Carter, C. R., and D. S. Rogers. 2008. “A Framework of Sustainable Supply Chain Management: Moving Toward new
Theory.” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 38: 360–387. doi:10.1108/
09600030810882816.
Cassano, A., R. Molinari, M. Romano, and E. Drioli. 2001. “Treatment of Aqueous Effluents of the Leather Industry by
Membrane Processes: A Review.” Journal of Membrane Science 181: 111–126. doi:10.1016/S0376-7388(00)00399-9.
Chan, A. P. C., and A. P. L. Chan. 2004. “Key Performance Indicators for Measuring Construction Success.”
Benchmarking: An International Journal 11: 203–221. doi:10.1108/14635770410532624.
Chen, L., F. Jia, T. Li, and T. Zhang. 2021a. “Supply Chain Leadership and Firm Performance: A Meta-Analysis.”
International Journal of Production Economics 235: 108082. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108082.
Chen, L., A. Moretto, F. Jia, F. Caniato, and Y. Xiong. 2021b. “The Role of Digital Transformation to Empower
Supply Chain Finance: Current Research Status and Future Research Directions (Guest Editorial).”
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 41: 277–288. doi:10.1108/IJOPM-04-2021-838.
China, C. R., M. M. Maguta, S. S. Nyandoro, A. Hilonga, S. V. Kanth, and K. N. Njau. 2020. “Alternative Tanning
Technologies and Their Suitability in Curbing Environmental Pollution from the Leather Industry: A
Comprehensive Review.” Chemosphere 254: 126804. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.126804.
CITES. 2022. What is CITES? | CITES [WWW Document]. Accessed February 13, 2022. https://cites.org/eng/disc/
what.php.
COTANCE. 2020. 2020 Social and Environmental Report – Euroleather.
CSCB. 2022. CSCB | Brazilian Leather Certification of Sustainability [WWW Document]. CSCB. Accessed February
22, 22. https://cicb.org.br/cscb/en.
de Klerk, H. M., M. Kearns, and M. Redwood. 2019. “Controversial Fashion, Ethical Concerns and Environmentally
Significant Behaviour: The Case of the Leather Industry.” International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management 47: 19–38. doi:10.1108/IJRDM-05-2017-0106.
De Marchi, V., and E. Di Maria. 2019. “Environmental Upgrading and Suppliers’ Agency in the Leather Global Value
Chain.” Sustainability 11: 6530. doi:10.3390/su11236530.
Demeke, Y., and G. E. Chiloane-Tsoka. 2015. “Internationalization Drivers of Small and Medium-Sized
Manufacturing Enterprises in Ethiopia: The Case of Leather and Leather Products Industry.” Probl. Perspect.
Manag 13: 12.
Denyer, D., and D. Tranfield. 2009. Producing a Systematic Review. Sage Handb. Organ. Res. Methods, The Sage
Handbook of Organizational Research Methods. Los Angeles, CA [u.a.]: SAGE, 671–689, ISBN 978-1-4462-
0064-3.
Dixit, S., A. Yadav, P. D. Dwivedi, and M. Das. 2015. “Toxic Hazards of Leather Industry and Technologies to
Combat Threat: A Review.” Journal of Cleaner Production 87: 39–49. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.017.
Donnellan, L. 2018. “The Cat and Dog Fur Regulation: A Case Study on the European Union’s Approach to Animal
Welfare.” Liverpool Law Review 39: 71–97. doi:10.1007/s10991-018-9208-z.
Dwivedi, A., D. Agrawal, and J. Madaan. 2019. “Sustainable Manufacturing Evaluation Model Focusing Leather
Industries in India: A TISM Approach.” Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management 10: 319–359.
doi:10.1108/JSTPM-06-2018-0054.
EC. 2007. REACH.
EC. 2012. The EU’s Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP).
EC. 2013. The Industrial Emissions Directive – Environment – European Commission, Directive 2010/75/EU.
EC. 2022. Legislation of Leather Industry-EC [WWW Document]. Accessed February 21, 2022. https://ec.europa.eu/
growth/sectors/fashion/leather-industry/legislation_en.
EC-ELIIT. 2019. European Light Industries Innovation and Technology (ELIIT) Project [WWW Document].
Accessed February 22, 2022. https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/fashion/eliit_en.
ECO2L. 2022. Guideline | ECO2L – Energy Controlled Leather [WWW Document]. Accessed February 21, 2022.
https://www.eco2l-leather.com/en/guideline/.
32 X. CHEN ET AL.

European Union, Eurostat. 2015. Sustainable Development in the European Union: 2015 Monitoring Report of the EU
Sustainable Development Strategy: 2015 Edition. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
FAO. 2016. World Statistical Compendium for Raw Hides and Skins, Leather and Leather Footwear 1999–2015. Rome:
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
FAO. 2022. Crops and Livestock Products Data from FAOSTAT [WWW Document]. Accessed May 10, 2022.
https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/TCL.
Federal Ministry Republic of Austria. 2016. European Sustainable Development Strategy [WWW Document]. Accessed
March 4, 2022. https://www.bmk.gv.at/en/topics/climate-environment/sustainable-development/eu-sds.html.
Ferronato, G., S. Corrado, V. De Laurentiis, and S. Sala. 2021. “The Italian Meat Production and Consumption
System Assessed Combining Material Flow Analysis and Life Cycle Assessment.” Journal of Cleaner Production
321: 128705. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128705.
Gebrewahid, G. G., and A. Wald. 2017. “Export Barriers and Competitiveness of Developing Economies: The Case of
the Ethiopian Leather Footwear Industry.” Journal of African Business 18: 396–416. doi:10.1080/15228916.2017.
1329475.
Ghadge, A., K. M. Er, H. Moradlou, and M. Goswami. 2020. “The Impact of Industry 4.0 Implementation on Supply
Chains.” Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 31: 669–686. doi:10.1108/JMTM-10-2019-0368.
Gimenez, C., and V. Sierra. 2013. “Sustainable Supply Chains: Governance Mechanisms to Greening Suppliers.”
Journal of Business Ethics 116: 189–203.
Gold, S., S. Seuring, and P. Beske. 2010. “Sustainable Supply Chain Management and Inter-Organizational Resources:
A Literature Review.” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 17: 230–245. doi:10.1002/
csr.207.
Grumiller, J. 2021. “Analyzing Industrial Policy Regimes Within Global Production Networks: The Ethiopian Leather
Industry.” Journal of Economic Geography 21: 433–457. doi:10.1093/jeg/lbaa021.
Gupta, S. K., and S. Gupta. 2019. “Closed Loop Value Chain to Achieve Sustainable Solution for Tannery Effluent.”
Journal of Cleaner Production 213: 845–846. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.240.
Hansen, É, P. M. de Aquim, and M. Gutterres. 2021. “Environmental Assessment of Water, Chemicals and Effluents
in Leather Post-Tanning Process: A Review.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 89: 106597. doi:10.1016/j.
eiar.2021.106597.
Hardy, V., and J. Hauge. 2019. “Labour Challenges in Ethiopia’s Textile and Leather Industries: No Voice, no Loyalty,
no Exit?” African Affairs 118: 712–736. doi:10.1093/afraf/adz001.
Hoffman, A. J. 2001. From Heresy to Dogma: An Institutional History of Corporate Environmentalism. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Hong, S. C. 2018. "Developing the Leather Industry in Bangladesh." Asian Development Bank. doi:10.22617/
BRF189645-2.
ICEC. 2022. About Us | ICEC [WWW Document]. ICEC – Inst. Qual. Certif. Leather Sect. Accessed February 22,
2022. https://www.icec.it/en/icec/about-us.
ICT. 2022. About ICT | ICT Leather. Accessed February 17, 2022. https://leather-council.org/what-we-do/about-ict/.
International Leather Organizations. 2021. COP26 Leather Manifesto.
Islam, Md.S., M.-L. Tseng, N. Karia, and C.-H. Lee. 2018. “Assessing Green Supply Chain Practices in Bangladesh
Using Fuzzy Importance and Performance Approach.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 131: 134–145.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.12.015.
ISO. 2022. ISO – About us [WWW Document]. ISO. Accessed January 16, 2022. https://www.iso.org/about-us.html.
Jaegler, A. 2016. “A Sustainable Supply Chain in the Leather Sector: Dilemmas, Challenges and Learnings.” Supply
Chain Forum: An International Journal 17: 136–142. doi:10.1080/16258312.2016.1211833.
Jeffer, S. B., I. I. Kassem, S. A. Kharroubi, and G. K. Abebe. 2021. “Analysis of Food Safety Management Systems in
the Beef Meat Processing and Distribution Chain in Uganda.” Foods 10: 2244. doi:10.3390/foods10102244.
Jerant, A., K. Fiscella, D. J. Tancredi, and P. Franks. 2013. “Health Insurance is Associated with Preventive Care but
Not Personal Health Behaviors.” The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine 26: 759–767. doi:10.3122/
jabfm.2013.06.130054.
Jia, F., S. Peng, J. Green, L. Koh, and X. Chen. 2020a. “Soybean Supply Chain Management and Sustainability: A
Systematic Literature Review.” Journal of Cleaner Production 255: 120254. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120254.
Jia, F., S. Yin, L. Chen, and X. Chen. 2020b. “The Circular Economy in the Textile and Apparel Industry: A Systematic
Literature Review.” Journal of Cleaner Production 259: 120728. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120728.
Jia, F., L. Zuluaga-Cardona, A. Bailey, and X. Rueda. 2018. “Sustainable Supply Chain Management in Developing
Countries: An Analysis of the Literature.” Journal of Cleaner Production 189: 263–278. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.
2018.03.248.
Jiang, Y., F. Jia, and Y. Gong. 2018. “IKEA: Global Sourcing and the Sustainable Leather Initiative.” International
Food and Agribusiness Management Review 21: 627–640. doi:10.22434/IFAMR2017.0109.
Kanagaraj, J., T. Senthilvelan, R. C. Panda, and S. Kavitha. 2015. “Eco-friendly Waste Management Strategies for
Greener Environment Towards Sustainable Development in Leather Industry: A Comprehensive Review.”
Journal of Cleaner Production 89: 1–17. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.013.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 33

Kano, L., E. W. K. Tsang, and H. W. Yeung. 2020. “Global Value Chains: A Review of the Multi-Disciplinary
Literature.” Journal of International Business Studies 51: 577–622. doi:10.1057/s41267-020-00304-2.
Karaosman, H., P. Perry, A. Brun, and G. Morales-Alonso. 2020. “Behind the Runway: Extending Sustainability
in Luxury Fashion Supply Chains.” Journal of Business Research 117: 652–663. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.09.
017.
Karunanidhi, D., P. Aravinthasamy, T. Subramani, D. Kumar, and G. Venkatesan. 2021. “Chromium Contamination
in Groundwater and Sobol Sensitivity Model Based Human Health Risk Evaluation from Leather Tanning
Industrial Region of South India.” Environmental Research 199: 111238. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2021.111238.
Kayikci, Y., M. Ozbiltekin, and Y. Kazancoglu. 2019. “Minimizing Losses at Red Meat Supply Chain with Circular
and Central Slaughterhouse Model.” Journal of Enterprise Information Management 33: 791–816. doi:10.1108/
JEIM-01-2019-0025.
Khusainova, N., and T. Vorozheykina. 2019. “Time to Collect Stones: Problems and Prospects for the fur Farming
Industry in Russia.” Espacios 40 (24): 21.
Kim, W. 2021. “A Study on the Subjective Feeling Affecting Tactile Satisfaction of Leather in Automobile: A
Structural Equation Modeling Approach.” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 84: 103167. doi:10.
1016/j.ergon.2021.103167.
Knutsen, H. M. 2000. “Environmental Practice in the Commodity Chain: The Dyestuff and Tanning Industries
Compared.” Review of International Political Economy 7: 254–288. doi:10.1080/096922900346965.
Koontz, S. R., and J. D. Lawrence. 2010. “Impacts of Alternative Marketing Agreement Cattle Procurement on Packer
Costs, Gross Margins, and Profits: Evidence from Plant-Level Profit and Loss Data.” Agribusiness 26 (1): 1–24.
doi:10.1002/agr.v26:1.
Korzeniewicz, M. 1992. “Global Commodity Networks and the Leather Footwear Industry: Emerging Forms of
Economic Organization in a Postmodern World.” Sociological Perspectives 35: 313–327. doi:10.2307/1389381.
L&HCA. 2020. U.S. Leather and Hide Industry 2020 Year End Review; 2021 Projections | LHCA [WWW Document].
Accessed December 29, 2021. https://www.usleather.org/press/US_Hide_Skin_Leather_Industry_2020_Year_
End_Data_2021_Projections.
Leather, UK. 2020a. Leather Industry Unites in Call for Higg Index Score for Leather to be Suspended. Leather UK.
Leather, UK. 2020b. The UK Leather & Leather Goods Industry in 2020 Report.
Leather, UK. 2022. Leather and the Consumer report-Leather UK.
The Leather Dictionary. 2021. www.leather-dictionary.com – The Leather Dictionary [WWW Document]. Accessed
December 14, 2021. https://www.leather-dictionary.com/index.php/The_Leather_Dictionary.
Lee, J., S. S. Harp, P. E. Horridge, and R. R. Russ. 2003. “Targeting Multicultural Purchase and Consumption
Segments in the Leather Handbag Market: Product Development and Merchandising Implications.” Family
and Consumer Sciences Research Journal 31: 297–330. doi:10.1177/1077727X02250141.
Lee, M., E. Karpova, and F. Baytar. 2019. “The Effects of Information on Young Consumers’ Attitudes and Purchase
Intentions of Fashion Products Made of Fur, Leather, and Wool.” Journal of Global Fashion Marketing 10: 177–
193. doi:10.1080/20932685.2019.1577160.
LWG. 2020. The Leather Working Group (LWG) Annual Report for the membership year 2020–21.
Maman, U., A. Mahbubi, and F. Jie. 2018. “Halal Risk Mitigation in the Australian–Indonesian Red Meat Supply
Chain.” Journal of Islamic Marketing 9: 60–79. doi:10.1108/JIMA-12-2015-0095.
Mammadova, A., J. Behagel, and M. Masiero. 2020. “Making Deforestation Risk Visible. Discourses on Bovine
Leather Supply Chain in Brazil.” Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences 112: 85–95.
doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.03.008.
Marconi, M., E. Marilungo, A. Papetti, and M. Germani. 2017. “Traceability as a Means to Investigate Supply Chain
Sustainability: The Real Case of a Leather Shoe Supply Chain.” Int. J. Prod. Res 55: 6638–6652. doi:10.1080/
00207543.2017.1332437.
Masi, D., S. Day, and J. Godsell. 2017. “Supply Chain Configurations in the Circular Economy: A Systematic
Literature Review.” Sustainability 9: 1602. doi:10.3390/su9091602.
Moktadir, Md.A., H. B. Ahmadi, R. Sultana, F.-T. Zohra, J. J. H. Liou, and J. Rezaei. 2020a. “Circular Economy
Practices in the Leather Industry: A Practical Step Towards Sustainable Development.” J. Clean. Prod 251:
119737. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119737.
Moktadir, M. A., S. M. Ali, R. Rajesh, and S. K. Paul. 2018a. “Modeling the Interrelationships among Barriers to
Sustainable Supply Chain Management in Leather Industry.” Journal of Cleaner Production 181: 631–651.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.245.
Moktadir, Md.A., A. Dwivedi, S. M. Ali, S. K. Paul, G. Kabir, and J. Madaan. 2019. “Antecedents for Greening the
Workforce: Implications for Green Human Resource Management.” International Journal of Manpower 41:
1135–1153. doi:10.1108/IJM-07-2019-0354.
Moktadir, Md.A., A. Dwivedi, N. S. Khan, S. K. Paul, S. A. Khan, S. Ahmed, and R. Sultana. 2021. “Analysis of Risk
Factors in Sustainable Supply Chain Management in an Emerging Economy of Leather Industry.” Journal of
Cleaner Production 283: 124641. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124641.
34 X. CHEN ET AL.

Moktadir, Md.A., A. Dwivedi, A. Rahman, C. J. Chiappetta Jabbour, S. K. Paul, R. Sultana, and J. Madaan. 2020b. “An
Investigation of Key Performance Indicators for Operational Excellence Towards Sustainability in the Leather
Products Industry.” Business Strategy and the Environment 29: 3331–3351. doi:10.1002/bse.2575.
Moktadir, Md.A., A. Kumar, S. M. Ali, S. K. Paul, R. Sultana, and J. Rezaei. 2020c. “Critical Success Factors for a
Circular Economy: Implications for Business Strategy and the Environment.” Business Strategy and the
Environment 29: 3611–3635. doi:10.1002/bse.2600.
Moktadir, Md.A., and M. M. Rahman. 2022. “Energy Production from Leather Solid Wastes by Anaerobic
Digestion: A Critical Review.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 161: 112378. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2022.
112378.
Moktadir, Md.A., T. Rahman, S. M. Ali, N. Nahar, and S. K. Paul. 2020d. “Examining Barriers to Reverse Logistics
Practices in the Leather Footwear Industry.” Annals of Operations Research 293: 715–746. doi:10.1007/s10479-019-
03449-y.
Moktadir, M. A., T. Rahman, M. H. Rahman, S. M. Ali, and S. K. Paul. 2018b. “Drivers to Sustainable Manufacturing
Practices and Circular Economy: A Perspective of Leather Industries in Bangladesh.” Journal of Cleaner
Production 174: 1366–1380. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.063.
Muchie, M. 2000. “Leather Processing in Ethiopia and Kenya: Lessons from India.” Technology in Society 22: 537–
555. doi:10.1016/S0160-791X(00)00027-0.
Nalyanya, K. M., R. Rop, A. Onyuka, and Z. Birech. 2019. “Recent use of Selected Phytochemistry to Mitigate
Environmental Challenges Facing Leather Tanning Industry: A Review.” Phytochemistry Reviews 18: 1361–
1373. doi:10.1007/s11101-019-09651-x.
Neri, A., E. Cagno, G. Di Sebastiano, and A. Trianni. 2018. “Industrial Sustainability: Modelling Drivers and
Mechanisms with Barriers.” Journal of Cleaner Production 194: 452–472.
OEKO-TEX. 2022. LEATHER STANDARD by OEKO-TEX® [WWW Document]. Accessed February 21, 2022.
https://www.oeko-tex.com/en/our-standards/leather-standard-by-oeko-tex.
Omoloso, O., K. Mortimer, W. R. Wise, and L. Jraisat. 2021. “Sustainability Research in the Leather Industry: A
Critical Review of Progress and Opportunities for Future Research.” Journal of Cleaner Production 285:
125441. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125441.
Pakistan Tanners Association. 2020. Pakistan Tanners Association Annual Report 2020–2021 [WWW Document].
Accessed December 29, 2021. https://www.pakistantanners.org/annualreport1920/index.html.
Pasquali, G. P. 2021. “When Value Chains go South: Upgrading in the Kenyan Leather Sector.” Journal of World
Business 56: 101161. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2020.101161.
Paul, B., U. Patnaik, G. Jaganth, and K. Murari. 2021. “Employment, Technology and Value Chain: A Case of Indian
Leather Industry.” Science, Technology and Society. doi:10.1177/09717218211010618
Pauly, M. V. 1968. “The Economics of Moral Hazard: Comment.” Am. Econ. Rev 58: 531–537.
Quintero-Angel, M., and C. C. Peña-Montoya. 2020. “Managing the Environmental Impacts of Small Businesses
Manufacturing Women’s Leather Dress Footwear in Colombia.” Fashion Practice 12: 394–420. doi:10.1080/
17569370.2020.1804149.
Rajeev, A., R. K. Pati, S. S. Padhi, and K. Govindan. 2017. “Evolution of Sustainability in Supply Chain Management:
A Literature Review.” Journal of Cleaner Production 162: 299–314. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.026.
Raynolds, L. T. 2004. “The Globalization of Organic Agro-Food Networks.” World Development 32: 725–743. doi:10.
1016/j.worlddev.2003.11.008.
Rolling, V., C. Seifert, V. Chattaraman, and A. Sadachar. 2021. “Pro-Environmental Millennial Consumers’
Responses to the fur Conundrum of Luxury Brands.” International Journal of Consumer Studies 45: 350–363.
doi:10.1111/ijcs.12626.
Rosa-Giglio, P. D., I. Ioannidis, G. Gonzalez-Quijano, and A. Fontanella. 2018. COTANCE-Product Environmental
Footprint Category Rules 160. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/pdf/PEFCR_leather.pdf.
SAC. 2021. The Sustainable Apparel Coalition [WWW Document]. Sustain. Appar. Coalit. Accessed February 21,
2022. https://apparelcoalition.org/the-sac/.
SAI. 2021. Social Accountability International SA8000® Standard [WWW Document]. SAI. Accessed February 5,
2022. https://sa-intl.org/programs/sa8000/.
Sancha, C., A. Longoni, and C. Giménez. 2015. “Sustainable Supplier Development Practices: Drivers and Enablers in
a Global Context.” Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 21: 95–102. doi:10.1016/j.pursup.2014.12.004.
Sathish, M., B. Madhan, K. J. Sreeram, J. Raghava Rao, and B. U. Nair. 2016. “Alternative Carrier Medium for
Sustainable Leather Manufacturing – a Review and Perspective.” Journal of Cleaner Production 112: 49–58.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.118.
Schouten, G., and V. Bitzer. 2015. “The Emergence of Southern Standards in Agricultural Value Chains: A new Trend
in Sustainability Governance?” Ecological Economics 120: 175–184. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.10.017.
Scott, W. R. 2014. Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests and Identities / W. Richard Scott. 4th ed. Los
Angeles, CA: Foundations for Organizational Science. SAGE.
Shafaei, R., H. Shahriari, and M. Moradi. 2009. “Investigation of Leather Industry Competitiveness in Iran.” Journal
of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal 13: 343–357. doi:10.1108/13612020910974483.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 35

Shin, D. C., and B. E. Jin. 2021. “Do fur Coats Symbolize Status or Stigma? Examining the Effect of Perceived Stigma
on Female Consumers’ Purchase Intentions Toward Fur Coats.” Fashion and Textiles 8: 10. doi:10.1186/s40691-
020-00229-2.
Singh, A., and H. Gundimeda. 2021. “Measuring Technical Efficiency and Shadow Price of Water Pollutants for the
Leather Industry in India: A Directional Distance Function Approach.” Journal of Regulatory Economics 59: 71–93.
doi:10.1007/s11149-020-09422-z.
Śmiechowski, K., and M. Lament. 2017. “Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Reporting on
pro-Ecological Actions of Tanneries.” Journal of Cleaner Production 161: 991–999. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.
05.104.
Summers, T. A., B. D. Belleau, and Y. Xu. 2006. “Predicting Purchase Intention of a Controversial Luxury Apparel
Product.” Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal 10: 405–419. doi:10.1108/
13612020610701947.
SWITCH-Asia. 2007. Home-SWITCH-Asia [WWW Document]. SWITCH-Asia. Accessed February 22, 2022.
https://www.switch-asia.eu/.
Textile Exchange. 2018. Responsible Leather Initiative – Textile Exchange. Accessed February 18, 2022. https://
textileexchange.org/responsible-leather-initiative/.
Textile Exchange. 2021. Recycled Claim Standard (RCS) + Global Recycled Standard (GRS) – Textile Exchange
[WWW Document]. Accessed February 21, 2022. https://textileexchange.org/standards/recycled-claim-
standard-global-recycled-standard/.
Tijani, S., and O. Ajayi. 2016. “Perception of Stakeholders to the Proposed Ban on Cow Hide Consumption in Ogun
State.” Journal of Agricultural Extension 20: 173. doi:10.4314/jae.v20i1.15.
Tseng, M.-L., M. S. Islam, N. Karia, F. A. Fauzi, and S. Afrin. 2019. “A Literature Review on Green Supply Chain
Management: Trends and Future Challenges.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 141: 145–162. doi:10.
1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.009.
Tuffa Birru, W. 2011. “Horizontal Inter-Firm Cooperation in Ethiopian Small and Medium Enterprises: Evidence
from Leather Shoe Manufacturing Firms in Addis Ababa.” Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development 18: 806–820. doi:10.1108/14626001111179811.
Uddin, S., S. M. Ali, G. Kabir, S. A. Suhi, R. Enayet, and T. Haque. 2019. “An AHP-ELECTRE Framework to Evaluate
Barriers to Green Supply Chain Management in the Leather Industry.” International Journal of Sustainable
Development & World Ecology 26: 732–751. doi:10.1080/13504509.2019.1661044.
UN, U. N. 2022. The Global Goals for Sustianable Development [WWW Document]. Glob. Goals. Accessed February
16, 2022. https://www.globalgoals.org/.
Wang, Y., M. Zheng, X. Liu, O. Yue, X. Wang, and H. Jiang. 2021. “Advanced Collagen Nanofibers-Based Functional
Bio-Composites for High-Value Utilization of Leather: A Review.” Journal of Science: Advanced Materials and
Devices 6: 153–166. doi:10.1016/j.jsamd.2021.02.001.
Wu, X., J. Wu, C. Mu, C. Wang, and W. Lin. 2021. “Advances in Antimicrobial Polymer Coatings in the Leather
Industry: A Comprehensive Review.” Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 60: 15004–15018. doi:10.
1021/acs.iecr.1c02600.
Xu, Y., T. A. Summers, and B. D. Belleau. 2004. “Who Buys American Alligator?” Journal of Business Research 57:
1189–1198. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00327-2.
Yang, Y., F. Jia, and Z. Xu. 2019. “Towards an Integrated Conceptual Model of Supply Chain Learning: An Extended
Resource-Based View.” Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 24: 189–214. doi:10.1108/SCM-11-
2017-0359.
Yazan, D. M., A. M. Petruzzelli, and V. Albino. 2011. “Analyzing the Environmental Impact of Transportation in
Reengineered Supply Chains: A Case Study of a Leather Upholstery Company.” Transportation Research Part
D: Transport and Environment 16: 335–340. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2011.01.003.
ZDHC. 2020. ZDHC Impact Report 2020.
Zheng, X.-X., D.-F. Li, Z. Liu, F. Jia, and B. Lev. 2021. “Willingness-to-Cede Behaviour in Sustainable Supply Chain
Coordination.” International Journal of Production Economics 240: 108207. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108207.
Zhu, Q., Y. Feng, and S.-B. Choi. 2017. “The Role of Customer Relational Governance in Environmental and
Economic Performance Improvement Through Green Supply Chain Management.” Journal of Cleaner
Production 155: 46–53. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.124.
Zhu, X., Q. Li, L. Wang, W. Wang, S. Liu, C. Wang, Z. Xu, L. Liu, and X. Qian. 2021. “Current Advances of
Polyurethane/Graphene Composites and Its Prospects in Synthetic Leather: A Review.” European Polymer
Journal 161: 110837. doi:10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2021.110837.
Zhu, X., Z. Zhang, X. Chen, F. Jia, and Y. Chai. 2022. “Nexus of Mixed-Use Vitality, Carbon Emissions and
Sustainability of Mixed-Use Rural Communities: The Case of Zhejiang.” Journal of Cleaner Production 330:
129766. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129766.
Zionts, S. 1979. “MCDM—If Not a Roman Numeral, Then What?” Interfaces 9: 94–101.
36 X. CHEN ET AL.

Appendix. The reviewed papers.

No. Author Objectives Methods Country Theory

1 (Kim 2021) In this study, a structural equation Modeling, Korea No
model (SEM) was proposed to Interview,
test customers’ tactile Survey
satisfaction with leather
materials for automotive
interiors.
2 (Jaegler 2016) This case investigated a specific Case study, France No
sustainable supply chain for the Interview
leather industry in French area
and found key issues and ways
for operational improvement.
3 (Uddin et al. 2019) Using a hybrid AHP-ELECTRE-I Modeling, Case Bangladesh No
method, this paper identified the study, Survey
barriers of leather GSCM,
providing managerial
implications for LPI
implementation.
4 (Moktadir et al. This research recognised the KPIs Modeling, Bangladesh No
2020b) of operational excellence for Survey
leather industry and their
prioritisation by adopting the
BWM and found the
‘Management’ category with the
highest priority.
5 (Moktadir et al. This research classified 44 risk Modeling, Bangladesh No
2021) factors of the LISC into five- Interview,
dimensions to sustainability and Survey
tested their influences towards
the decision-making purpose
using BWM.
6 (Grumiller 2021) This article empirically introduced Case study, Ethiopy No
the Ethiopian leather industry in Interview
assessing the dynamic
interrelationship between
suppliers and industrial policy
institutions under the global
production networks (GPNs).
7 (Yazan, Petruzzelli, This paper developed an enterprise Modeling, Case Italy No
and Albino 2011) input-output model to compare Study
the supply chains of a leather
company with different spatial
configurations and found
reengineered chain perform
worse environmental outcomes.
8 (Moktadir et al. The paper used a total interpretive Modeling, Bangladesh No
2019) structural modeling technique to Interview,
study the antecedents for green Survey
human resource management of
the tannery industry supply
chain and conducted a Matriced
Impact Croises Multiplication
Applique analysis to determine
their driving-dependence power.
9 (Islam et al. 2018) This study explored the Survey Bangladesh Fuzzy set
significance and performance
levels of green supply chain
practice in the Bangladesh
leather industry with subjective
human preference using a hybrid
method.

(Continued )
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 37

Continued.
No. Author Objectives Methods Country Theory
10 (Karaosman et al. This paper adopted qualitative Case Study, Italy Natural resource-based
2020) interviews to investigate the Interview view
sustainability integration about
various tiers in two Italian luxury
supply chains and pointed out
the focus on raw materials.
11 (Moktadir et al. This article proposed a decision Interview, Bangladesh No
2020a) support framework with BWM to Survey
investigate the challenges of the
CE practices in the leather supply
chain and found the highest
weight of ‘lack of financial
support from authorities’.
12 (Gupta and Gupta The paper discussed the Experiment No
2019) sustainable industrial ecosystem
design to decrease the high total
dissolved solids waste water
from tannery process to make it
reusable.
13 (de Klerk, Kearns, This paper investigated the Survey South Africa No
and Redwood customer purchase intent for
2019) leather products in South Africa
and reported the positive
relationship between leather
goods’ functional together with
individual luxury value
perceptions and their behaviors.
14 (Moktadir et al. This paper used BWM and Case Study, Bangladesh Critical Success Factor
2020c) DEMATEL to evaluate the critical Modeling,
success factor of CE practices in Interview,
the leather supply chains and Survey
found the importance of top-
management commitment.
15 (Askarian-Amiri, In this study, the authors reviewed Modeling, Case Iran No
Paydar, and a leather supply chain network Study
Safaei 2021) with a discounted online channel
and maximise the profits with a
mathematic model, resulted in
over 95% of the responsiveness
of the main retailers.
16 (Shin and Jin 2021) This research investigated Survey The USA Stigma
consumer purchasing decisions
towards fur coats and faux fur
coats with the stigma theory and
found out status-seeking
consumers with higher purchase
intentions to both.
17 (Moktadir et al. This study evaluated and sort the Modeling, Case Bangladesh Graph
2018b) drivers of sustainable practices in Study
the Bangladesh leather industry
with graph theory and a matrix
approach, and pointed out the
role of the knowledge of CE.
18 (Paul et al. 2021) This work studied the leather value Modeling, India No
chain in India with multiple Survey,
databases and methods and Secondary
emphasised the importance of Data Analysis
human capital in firm
performance.
19 (De Marchi and Di This paper approached Case study, Italy No
Maria 2019) environmental upgrading in Interview,
global value chains in Italy and Secondary
presented how suppliers develop Data Analysis
sustainable strategies to achieve
their values through the lens of
innovation.

(Continued )
38 X. CHEN ET AL.

Continued.
No. Author Objectives Methods Country Theory
20 (Moktadir et al. This paper investigated and ranked Modeling, Case Bangladesh Fuzzy set
2020d) the barriers for Reverse logistics study, Survey
in the leather footwear industry
of Bangladesh with expert advice
and a fuzzy AHP method.
21 (Gebrewahid and The study identified the export Interview, Ethiopy No
Wald 2017) barriers and different clusters at Survey
firm level in the Ethiopian leather
footwear industry, resulted in
new barriers and suggestions.
22 (Akram et al., 2022) This study examined individual Modeling, Pakistan Resource-based view
green values’ mediating role Survey
between green transformational
leadership and environmental
performance in Pakistan leather
industry and encouraged the
environmental awareness at the
individual level.
23 (Belleau and This study explored the attitudes of Survey The USA No
Nowlin 2001) customers toward exotic leather
with Sproles’ model of fashion
adoption and found fashion
leaders prefer exotic leather
apparel products more than their
followers.
24 (Korzeniewicz This paper investigated the utility Survey Brazil, the USA Postmodern
1992) of examining global commodity and
networks with cases in Brazil, the Argentina
USA and Argentina and realised
the roles of the domestic political
economy in the countries.
25 (Amicarelli, Fiore, This research used the Material Primary and Italy Material flow analysis
and Bux 2021) Flow Analysis (MFA) method to secondary
evaluate the food waste in the data analysis
beef supply chain in Italy during
the Pandemic.
26 (Tuffa Birru 2011) This paper explored the Interview Ethiopia No
cooperative relationships in
small and medium sized leather
footwear companies in Ethiopia
and showed that most of them
work with other firms.
27 (Jiang, Jia, and This case study introduced the Case Study, International No
Gong 2018) sustainable leather initiative of Interview
IKEA, including its global
sourcing strategies and structure,
and provided a benchmark for
other multinational firms.
28 (Śmiechowski and This paper aimed at evaluating the Survey Poland No
Lament 2017) Corporate Social Responsibility
(CSR) reporting of tanning
companies in Poland and other
countries and their eco
behaviours.
29 (Koontz and This work compared and measured Modelling, The USA No
Lawrence 2010) the meatpacker costs and profits Secondary
under captive supplies or cattle data analysis
procured through alternative
marketing agreements (AMAs);
and found a negative influence

(Continued )
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 39

Continued.
No. Author Objectives Methods Country Theory
on packing industry efficiency
with limited AMA use.
30 (Demeke and This study investigated the driving Interview, Ethiopia behavioral theory of
Chiloane-Tsoka factors of globalization for small Survey, internationalization
2015) and medium sized enterprises in Secondary
Ethiopian leather industry. Data
31 (Shafaei, Shahriari, This paper evaluated the Survey Iran No
and Moradi competitiveness of the leather
2009) value chain in Iran with that of
other countries and found the
reasons for their weekness.
32 (Hardy and Hauge This paper accessed the influences Interview Ethiopia No
2019) of workers collective and
individual goals on their working
environments and wages in the
textile and leather industries and
the challenges of the industries.
33 (Brautigam, Weis, This article accessed the leather Interview Ethiopia No
and Tang 2018) industrial policies and
engagement in Ethiopia, studied
the government’s progress, and
identified several barriers.
34 (Muchie 2000) This research compared India, Case Study Ethiopia, India No
Kenya, and Ethiopia’s leather
products industries and provided
improved suggestions for the
latter two countries.
35 (Mammadova, This article discussed the political Interview Brazil No
Behagel, and discourses of deforestation risk in
Masiero 2020) the Brazil bovine leather supply
chain regarding transparency
and effects on legitimacy,
fairness and sustainability
outcomes.
36 (Quintero-Angel This paper discussed the adverse Interview Colombia No
and Peña- environmental outcomes,
Montoya 2020) especially the production and
the final stage of the life cycle of
leather dress footwear and
related methods.
37 (Singh and This paper calculated the Modeling, India No
Gundimeda pollution-reduction cost in the Survey
2021) Kanpur leather industry in India
and gound that firms can abate
pollution at least cost under a
market-based regime and
provided tools for equilibrium
discharge permit price
determination.
38 (Kayikci, Ozbiltekin, This paper used the Grey method Modelling, Turkey Grey System
and Kazancoglu to predict the number of Secondary
2019) slaughtered cattle and bone and data analysis
blood waste during slaughtering;
and pointed out the importance
and solutions of sustainable and
circular management in the
Turkish red meat sector.
39 (Moktadir et al. The paper identified the barriers Case Study, Bangladesh No
2018a) and examined their causal Survey,
relationships in the sustainable Modeling
leather supply chain
management in Bangladesh with
a hybrid method.

(Continued )
40 X. CHEN ET AL.

Continued.
No. Author Objectives Methods Country Theory
40 (Alfonso, Kalenatic, This research developed a Modeling Colombia Grey
and López 2010) mathematical model based on
IMP and Data Envelopment
Analysis framework to describe
the main variables and the
synergy level in a collaborative
vertical logistical system such as
a suppy chain.
41 (Tijani and Ajayi This study investigated Interview, Nigeria No
2016) stakeholders’ perception of the Survey
ban on eatable hide
consumption by interviewing
and found most of them were
negative and in need of
adequate knowledge.
42 (Bowman et al. The paper calculated 20-year Net Modelling, Brazil No
2012) Present Values of extensive cattle Survey,
ranching across the Brazilian Secondary
Amazon and pointed out the data analysis
importance of land speculation.
43 (Summers, Belleau, This study used the Theory of Survey The USA Reasoned Action (TRA)
and Xu 2006) Reasoned Action to identified the
purchase intention of rich female
consumers towards controversial
American alligator leather
products.
44 (Rolling et al. 2021) This paper investigated the brand Survey The USA Social norm
attitude and purchase intention
of U.S. Millennial consumers for
luxury fur products and
encouraged luxury brands to
develop fur alternatives for
sustainability.
45 (Dwivedi, Agrawal, This paper demonstrated how KPIs Modeling, India No
and Madaan evaluate sustainable Interview,
2019) manufacturing policies for Survey
leather industries in India.
46 (Lee et al. 2003) This research discussed the Survey The USA No
handbag purchase standards and
consumption patterns of Korean
Americans and White Americans.
47 (Donnellan 2018) This paper discussed the Cat and Case Study EU No
Dog Fur Regulation of the
European Union and case in the
UK, stating the importance of
legislation and enforcement of
EU animal welfare protection.
48 (Lee, Karpova, and The study examined the effects of Survey The USA Reasoned Action (TRA)
Baytar 2019) information sideness on
consumer attitudes and purchase
intntion of fashion leather, wool
and fur goods.
49 (Ferronato et al. The study used Material Flow Case study Italy Material flow analysis
2021) Analysis (MFA) and Life cycle
Assessment (LCA) to analyze the
Italian meat supply chain and
quantified consumed meat and
animal by-products (ABPs) and
pointed out the importance of
ABP re-use.
50 (Belleau et al. This study investigated the Modelling, The USA Reasoned Action (TRA)
2007) purchase intention of Generation Survey
Y consumers on emu leather
fashion goods.

(Continued )
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 41

Continued.
No. Author Objectives Methods Country Theory
51 (Khusainova and The paper concerned the crisis of Secondary Data Russia Cluster development
Vorozheykina the Russian fur industry of Analysis and import
2019) market and efficiency and substitution
provided suggestions for
establishing a cluster to produce
mink skins and finished products.
52 (Marconi et al. A case study and a structured Case Study, Italy No
2017) approach were conducted in this Survey,
paper to evaluate the economic Interview
impacts of the whole leather
footwear SC with traceability.
53 (Pasquali 2021) This paper studied the North-South Interview, Kenya No
and South-South value chains Secondary
and evaluated with the data of Data Analysis
the Kenyan leather sector and
found differences and the intra-
Africa value chains as small
suppliers’ platforms for higher
value-added tasks.
54 (Xu, Summers, and This paper investigated the Survey The USA Reasoned Behaviour
Belleau 2004) consumer attitudes towards
American alligator leather
accessories in the USA and
forecasted the purchase
intention.
55 (COTANCE 2020) The Social and Environmental Industry Report Europe
Report of the European Leather
Industry illustrated the European
leather industry’s sustainable
progress achieved from 2012 to
2020.
56 (Hong 2018) The Asian Development Bank Industry Report Bangladesh
reported on the development of
the leather industry in
Bangaladesh and stated its
potential and the need for
sustainable approaches.
57 (Leather UK 2022) Leather UK surveyed 2000 UK Industry Report Britain
adults to learn their leather
consuming views.
58 (Pakistan Tanners The 2020–21 Annual Report of the Industry Report Pakistan
Association Pakistan Tanners Association
2020) illustrated its increasing
competitiveness and highlighted
its activities in the year.
59 (LWG 2020) The Leather Working Group Annual Industry Report International
Report introduced their work
towards the United Nations SDGs
and the future direction and
auditing of the leather industry.
60 (Leather UK 2020b) Leather UK reported the negative Industry Report Britain
influences of Covid-19 and the
fall of export on the UK leather
and leather goods industry in
2020.
61 (L&HCA 2020) L&HCA illustrated the price Industry Report The USA
declines and falls of export
values of the American leather
throughout 2020 and the future
risks and directions.

View publication stats