dw.com
Luxury Brands Linked to Amazon Deforestation Through Leather Supply Chain
A new Earthsight report alleges that luxury brands like Coach, Fendi, and Hugo Boss are linked to deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon through their use of leather from cattle raised on illegally deforested land in Pará, Brazil, which will host the UN Climate Conference COP30 in November 2024.
- How does the lack of traceability and transparency in the Brazilian cattle and leather supply chain contribute to deforestation and human rights abuses?
- The report highlights the lack of transparency and traceability within the Brazilian leather supply chain, enabling "cattle laundering"—where cattle from illegal farms are transferred to legal ones before sale. This practice allows illegally sourced leather to enter the market, masking its origin and complicating efforts to hold responsible parties accountable. The involvement of major international brands underscores the global reach of this issue and the urgent need for improved supply chain monitoring.
- What are the immediate consequences of the Earthsight report's revelations concerning the sourcing of leather by luxury brands from deforested areas in Brazil?
- A new Earthsight report reveals that several designer brands, including Coach, Fendi, and Hugo Boss, may be using leather sourced from deforested areas in Brazil's Pará state, home to COP30. The report, based on extensive data analysis and field research, links these brands to a Brazilian meatpacking company, Frigol, which allegedly purchased cattle raised on illegally deforested land, including within indigenous territories. This raises serious ethical and environmental concerns.
- What are the potential long-term impacts of the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) on the Brazilian leather industry and its efforts to address deforestation and human rights issues?
- The upcoming implementation of the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) could significantly impact the Brazilian leather industry, forcing companies to enhance traceability and ensure deforestation-free sourcing. However, the success of the EUDR depends on effective enforcement and its ability to address loopholes. The lack of a transparent public system in Brazil regarding cattle origin remains a major obstacle in combating illegal deforestation and human rights violations within the leather supply chain.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the issue as a problem of corporate responsibility and the lack of transparency in the Brazilian leather supply chain. The headline and introduction emphasize the alleged involvement of luxury brands, potentially leading readers to focus more on consumer pressure than broader systemic issues within Brazil's agricultural practices and regulatory frameworks. While the article mentions the role of the Brazilian government, this aspect is not given the same prominence.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral, employing words like "allegations," "investigation," and "report." However, phrases like "widespread practice of 'cattle laundering'" and referring to deforestation under Bolsonaro's presidency carry implicit negative connotations. While not overtly biased, such word choices subtly influence reader perception. More neutral alternatives could be used, like 'illegal cattle trade' and 'deforestation during the Bolsonaro administration'.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the findings of Earthsight's report and the responses from implicated companies. However, it omits perspectives from smaller leather producers or other stakeholders in the Brazilian leather industry who may have differing practices or experiences. It also doesn't delve into the effectiveness or limitations of other certification systems beyond the LWG. While acknowledging space constraints, these omissions could limit a comprehensive understanding of the complexities involved in reforming the Brazilian leather supply chain.
False Dichotomy
The article doesn't explicitly present false dichotomies, but the framing around the effectiveness of certifications like the LWG versus individual company due diligence could be interpreted as an oversimplification. It implies a clear choice between relying on certifications or undertaking extensive independent audits, while the reality likely involves a combination of both.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights how designer brands are linked to deforestation and human rights abuses through their supply chains. The use of leather from cattle raised on illegally deforested land in the Amazon contradicts sustainable consumption and production principles. The lack of transparency and traceability in the supply chain makes it difficult to ensure responsible sourcing.