Article

Fashion Wears Sustainable Leather: A Social and Strategic

Analysis Toward Sustainable Production and
Consumption Goals
Idiano D’Adamo 1, * , Marta Gagliarducci 2 , Martina Iannilli 2 and Valeria Mangani 3

1 Department of Computer, Control and Management Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome,

00185 Rome, Italy
2 Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy; [email protected] (M.G.);
[email protected] (M.I.)
3 Sustainable Fashion Innovation Society, 00185 Rome, Italy; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: While fashion and sustainability are often proposed as opposing concepts, many compa-
nies in the fashion industry are actively working to transform their operations to achieve greater
sustainability. The production of leather goods significantly contributes to air and water pollution
and generates challenging waste disposal issues. The present study explored emerging sustainable
paradigms in the leather goods industry through both social and strategic analyses. The results
indicate that, although consumers are often unaware of the differences among leather types, there is
a growing openness to sustainable alternatives and a willingness to pay for these products. Quality
and durability are key consumer priorities, though a bias toward fast fashion persists. Notably, while
consumers value vegan leather as a sustainable alternative, experts caution that synthetic leather
alternatives may have greater environmental drawbacks compared to traditional leather. The work
supports SDG 12 by advocating for reduced reliance on materials with a high environmental impact
and the adoption of sustainable alternatives. Enhanced consumer communication may also drive the
industry toward a model that integrates environmental and social responsibility with profitability.
Citation: D’Adamo, I.; Gagliarducci, Given the prestigious status of leather goods within the Made in Italy initiative, the present work
M.; Iannilli, M.; Mangani, V. Fashion suggests that the value of vegan leather may increase within the global market.
Wears Sustainable Leather: A Social
and Strategic Analysis Toward
Keywords: fashion; leather; social analysis; strategic analysis; sustainability
Sustainable Production and
Consumption Goals. Sustainability
2024, 16, 9971. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su16229971
1. Introduction
Academic Editor: Cristina Raluca
Sustainable innovation models based on territorial cooperation and the enhancement
Gh. Popescu
of local resources and skills may generate significant competitive advantages [1]. Such
Received: 27 September 2024 dynamic models, determined by continuous change in efficiency, effectiveness, and sustain-
Revised: 9 November 2024 able waste management, require stakeholder co-creation [2,3]. The transition from project-
Accepted: 14 November 2024 based initiatives to sustainable operations requires permanent, routine organizational
Published: 15 November 2024 structures [4], based on criteria such as accessibility, control, and interconnectedness [5].
Corporate environmental progress is significantly influenced by the leadership char-
acteristics of key decision-makers [6]. Additionally, circular transitions benefit when
stakeholders engage in knowledge sharing and mutual learning [7]. Strategy determines
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
the path by which a goal is to be achieved, while tactics define the necessary actions. The
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
textile and clothing industry must integrate sustainability with natural resource conser-
This article is an open access article
vation [8], moving beyond greenwashing [9] by adopting a “take, make, waste” model
distributed under the terms and
throughout the supply chain [10] and promoting decarbonization [11]. Growing interest in
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [1,12], particularly with respect to sustainable
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
supply chain networks [13], closed-loop systems [14], tax effects [15], reshoring [16], life
4.0/). cycle analyses [17], circularity practices [18], innovative business models [19], intellectual

Sustainability 2024, 16, 9971. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16229971 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2024, 16, 9971 2 of 35

capital development [20], and the benefits of digitization [21], is driving the transition of
industrial processes. However, the effectiveness of this shift depends on active consumer
participation. Thus, the resolution of social barriers is necessary [22], and the reuse and
recycling of clothing should be encouraged under the banner of circular fashion [23,24].
For companies to successfully transition, consumers must recognize a “circular premium”,
or willingness to pay (WTP) more for sustainable products compared to those derived from
fossil sources [25]. Although the literature proposes various business models for circular
fashion [26,27], there is a continued need to focus on circular redesign, subscription-based
models, and textile reuse and recycling [28]. The identification of operational strategies to
enhance competitiveness, alongside business strategies for achieving sustainability goals,
remains essential for advancing the circular fashion agenda [29–31].
Consumer analysis is key to understanding behaviors and preferences regarding
circular and sustainable fashion. Within this sector, the luxury segment is particularly
significant, as it offers substantial business opportunities; however, these must be analyzed
from a sustainability perspective [32–34]. Across all segments, durability is a primary
attribute valued by consumers, and small percentages of recycled content or recyclability
contribute little perceived value. Rather, consumers prefer products with 100% sustainable
characteristics [35]. Transparency and accountability in supply chains can be improved
with digital tools [36], providing consumers with valuable information [37,38]. Consumer
collectives can also promote the diffusion of circular products and increase WTP a premium
for these products [39].
Responsible consumers are often willing to pay more for sustainable products, driven
by self-identity and a sense of ethical alignment [40], with consumer education playing a
pivotal role [41]. Studies have indicated a strong positive correlation between education
level and knowledge of sustainable and circular fashion [42]. Environmental awareness
and concerns for animal conservation further motivate consumer support for sustainable
product labels [43]. From a pragmatic perspective, consumers are likely to accept a circular
premium when they perceive cost savings and long-term value [25], particularly for items
produced under fair labor conditions or from bio-based materials, though this is less
pronounced for items made from recycled materials. However, there remains a negative
perception around second-hand clothing [44], as some consumers associate it with lower
quality, leading to a gap between positive attitudes toward circular fashion and actual
purchasing behavior [45].
Sustainable fashion requires alignment between consumer and company priorities [46–48],
necessitating the integration of these interests across the industry [29,49]. The fashion
industry must advance toward SDG 12, supported by policies that facilitate business trans-
formation, promote consumer education, and encourage the entry of skilled professionals
into the sustainable fashion sector [50].
Life-cycle analyses have produced varying results, based on factors such as tannery
practices, location, and raw materials [51]. On the consumer side, increased confidence
in recycling appears essential [52]. The tanning industry has significant and negative
environmental impacts [53], as its solid and liquid waste streams can cause substantial
environmental damage [54,55]. Ethical concerns around the leather supply chain, partic-
ularly in relation to the ethical treatment of animals, have also intensified the demand
for sustainable evaluation [56]. While vegan leather offers a potential alternative, con-
sumer uptake remains limited [57]. Different definitions of leather are proposed in the
literature. Some authors categorize vegan leather as either petroleum-based (derived from,
e.g., polyurethane or polyvinyl chloride) or plant-based (derived from, e.g., mushrooms,
pineapple, corn, bananas, apples, cactus, green tea, coffee grounds, or coconut water) [43],
while others classify it according to the source material [58]:
• Animal-based leather: sourced from cattle, sheep, goat, fish, camel, or oysters.
• Synthetic leather: made from textile fabrics, polyurethane, or polyvinyl chloride.
• Plant-based vegan leather: derived from fungi, cactus, mango, or banana.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9971 3 of 35

Finally, synthetic leather is defined as an artificial substitute for real leather, and is
thus often referred to as “artificial leather” [57].
There is a need to evaluate all leather options from a sustainable perspective, to
provide stakeholders with a comprehensive view. The present study aimed at addressing
this need through two research objectives (ROs):
• Research objective 1 (RO1)—A social analysis of consumer behaviors and habits in the
apparel industry, comparing traditional, synthetic, and vegan leather products.
• Research objective 2 (RO2)—A strategic sustainability analysis of traditional, synthetic,
and vegan leather to identify the most sustainable options.
The analyses were conducted with reference to the Italian market, representing a
longstanding center of global fashion. In addition, the project benefited from collaboration
with the Sustainable Fashion Innovation Society—an internationally recognized platform
promoting ecological transition within the fashion industry. Following this introduction,
Section 2 presents a literature review, initially focusing on circular fashion and the con-
cept of a circular premium, then offering a systematic literature review (SLR) on leather
sustainability. Section 3 outlines the methodologies employed: an online survey for social
analysis and a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) for strategic analysis. The findings
are discussed in Sections 4 and 5, which examine the responses of consumers and other
stakeholder categories (i.e., academics, consultants, industry experts). Finally, Section 6
presents the conclusions and main implications of the study.

2. Literature Review
The literature review aimed at assessing and quantifying the presence of studies
regarding alternatives to traditional leather, while also facilitating a deeper examination of
the environmental impact associated with the traditional leather industry. Specifically, the
review comprised a two-tiered search conducted within Scopus on 2 September 2024.

2.1. Circular Fashion and the Circular Premium

The first stage of the research aimed at analyzing the broader concepts of circular
fashion and the circular premium [24,25,36,59,60]. The search terms used were: “Circular
fashion” AND “Circular premium”. No specific filters were applied, as the goal was to
capture a comprehensive view of how these topics are addressed in the literature. The
search yielded 492 publications, of which most were recently published, as illustrated in
Figure A1. While the number of studies on these topics surged between 2022 and 2023,
they were scarcely covered before 2020.
Geographically, the majority of the scientific contributions originated in India (142),
followed closely by China (141) and Italy (98). England (68) and the United States (65) also
made significant contributions. Figures 1 and A2 provide a visual representation of these
data, with darker colors indicating regions with higher levels of scientific output.
Table 1 identifies the five authors and journals that contributed the most to the field.
Leading the authorship was Idiano D’Adamo (Sapienza University of Rome), followed by
Antonis Zorpas and Iliana Papamichael (both Open University of Cyprus). Among the
journals, Sustainability ranked the highest in publication volume, followed by the Journal of
Cleaner Production and Sustainable Production and Consumption.

Table 1. Top five authors and journals (circular fashion and circular premium).

Authors Articles Sources Articles

D’Adamo, Idiano 14 Sustainability (Switzerland) 65
Zorpas, Antonis A. 9 Journal of Cleaner Production 24
Papamichael, Iliana 9 Sustainable Production and Consumption 19
Dangelico, Rosa Maria 6 Business Strategy and the Environment 15
Voukkali, Irene 6 Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 14
 Sustainability
Sustainability 2024,
2024, 16,16, x FOR PEER REVIEW
9971 4 of 36
4 of 35

Figure 1. Scientific production by nation (circular fashion and circular premium).

Figure 1. Scientific production by nation (circular fashion and circular premium).
The word cloud visualizes the keywords selected by authors, underscoring the specific
Tableof1.their
focus Top five authorsand
research andits
journals (circular
alignment fashion
with and circular premium).
environmental and sustainability issues
(Figure 2). Terms presented in larger sizes exhibited greater frequency, with prominent
Authors Articles Sources Articles
examples including “sustainability”, “sustainable consumption”, “fashion industry”, and
D’Adamo, Idiano 14 Sustainability (Switzerland) 65
“consumer behavior”. These terms reflect an evolving mindset within both consumer
Zorpas, Antonis A. groups and manufacturing 9 Journal of Cleaner Production
sectors in the fashion industry. On the consumer side, keywords 24
Papamichael, Iliana such as “purchase 9 intention”, “willingness SustainabletoProduction and Consumption
pay”, and “perceived value” are evident, 19
Dangelico,
Sustainability 2024, 16,Rosa
x FORMaria highlighting the6need for buyers to adapt
PEER REVIEW BusinesstheirStrategy and the
purchasing Environment
habits and willingness to pay 515offor
36
Voukkali, Irene 6 Journal of Retailing and Consumer
circular, environmentally conscious products. For manufacturers, terms such as “corporate Services 14
social responsibility”, “green marketing”, and “green products” illustrate the growing
The with
importance
practices, word cloud
of integrating
an visualizes
emphasis the keywords
sustainability
on recycling intoand selected
business
waste by authors,
practices.
management underscoring
This within
shift requires the spe-
compa-
the context of
cific
nies tofocus
adopt of
circular fashion.a their research and
sustainability-centered its alignment
approach, with environmental
fostering a new and sustainability
cultural and issues
operational
(Figure 2).
paradigm thatTerms presented
not only prioritizes in larger sizes exhibited
environmental greater but
responsibility frequency, with clear
also enables prominent
and
examples
genuine including “sustainability”,
communication with consumers “sustainable consumption”,
through eco-friendly “fashion
marketing industry”, and
strategies.
“consumer behavior”. These terms reflect an evolving mindset within both consumer
groups and manufacturing sectors in the fashion industry. On the consumer side, key-
words such as “purchase intention”, “willingness to pay”, and “perceived value” are evi-
dent, highlighting the need for buyers to adapt their purchasing habits and willingness to
pay for circular, environmentally conscious products. For manufacturers, terms such as
“corporate social responsibility”, “green marketing”, and “green products” illustrate the
growing importance of integrating sustainability into business practices. This shift re-
quires companies to adopt a sustainability-centered approach, fostering a new cultural
and operational paradigm that not only prioritizes environmental responsibility but also
enables clear and genuine communication with consumers through eco-friendly market-
ing strategies.
Figure 3 presents a co-occurrence network that visualizes keyword frequency and
interrelationships, with “sustainability” and “sustainable development” emerging as two
of the most central and prominent terms. This prominence reflects the fundamental im-
portance
Figure
Figure 2.2.Wordof cloud
Word sustainability
cloud(circular within
(circularfashion
fashion andcircular
and circularfashion
circular premium).
premium). research, connected to a variety of
themes, such as “supply chain management”, “manufacturing”, and “marketing”. An-
Figure
other 3 presents a co-occurrence network that visualizes keyword frequency and inter-
A significant
particularlynode in the network
noteworthy pa ernisis“consumption
the triangularbehavior”,
connectionwhich is associated
between “sustainabil-with
relationships,
keywords with
such “sustainability”
as “perception”, and “sustainable
“willingness to development”
pay”, and emerging
“environmental as two of the
protection”.
ity”, “consumption behavior”, and “sustainable development”. This relationship illus-
most
Thiscentral
suggestsandthat
prominent
much ofterms. This prominence
thegrounded
literature emphasizes reflects
consumerthe fundamental
behavior, and importance
particularly
trates that circular fashion is in sustainability and sustainable development,
ofhow
sustainability
perceptions within
and circular
a itudes fashion
influence research, connected
sustainable to a
consumption.variety of
The themes,
node such
“circular
with consumer behavior serving as a driving force for change. This alignment of keywords
aseconomy”
“supply chainalso management”,
features “manufacturing”,
prominently, linked to termsandsuch
“marketing”. Another significant
as “recycling”,
with authors’ own selections reinforces the importance and centrality of“waste manage-
these themes,
node in
ment”, the
andnetwork
“product is “consumption
design”. This behavior”,
indicates a which
strong is associated
research focus with
on keywords
circular such
economy
confirming that consumption behavior is pivotal for driving companies and industries to
pursue sustainable alternatives.
 Figure 2. Word cloud (circular fashion and circular premium).

A particularly noteworthy pa ern is the triangular connection between “sustainabil-

Sustainability 2024, 16, 9971
ity”, “consumption behavior”, and “sustainable development”. This relationship 5 of 35 illus-

trates that circular fashion is grounded in sustainability and sustainable development,

with consumer behavior serving as a driving force for change. This alignment of keywords
as “perception”, “willingness to pay”, and “environmental protection”. This suggests that
withmuch
authors’
of theown selections
literature reinforces
emphasizes consumerthebehavior,
importance and centrality
and particularly of these themes,
how perceptions
confirming that consumption
and attitudes behavior
influence sustainable is pivotalThe
consumption. for node
driving companies
“circular andalso
economy” industries
fea- to
pursue sustainable
tures prominently,alternatives.
linked to terms such as “recycling”, “waste management”, and “product
design”. This indicates a strong research focus on circular economy practices, with an
emphasis on recycling and waste management within the context of circular fashion.

Figure
Figure 3. Co-occurrence
3. Co-occurrence network(circular
network (circular fashion
fashionand circular
and premium).
circular premium).
A particularly noteworthy pattern is the triangular connection between “sustainabil-
The “consumption
ity”, thematic map in Figure
behavior”, 4 visually organizes
and “sustainable development”.theThis
primary themes
relationship in the field,
illustrates
ranking
that them according
circular fashion istogrounded
relevance in (centrality)
sustainabilityandandlevel of development
sustainable development, (density).
with This
map consumer
is segmented intoserving
behavior four quadrants,
as a drivingeach
forcerepresenting
for change. Thisa distinct
alignment category of thematic
of keywords
with authors’
relevance own selections
in the literature. In thereinforces
drivingthe importance
themes and centrality
quadrant, we find core of these themes,such as
concepts
confirming
“sustainable that consumption
development”, behavior economy”,
“circular is pivotal for and
driving companies
“decision and industries
making”. Thesetothemes
pursue sustainable alternatives.
are central to ongoing research, underscoring the strong emphasis on integrating sustain-
The thematic map in Figure 4 visually organizes the primary themes in the field,
ability and circular
ranking economy
them according principles
to relevance withinand
(centrality) thelevel
fashion industry. Additionally,
of development (density). This topics
suchmapas is“recycling”,
segmented into“human”, and “waste
four quadrants, management”
each representing a distinctfeature
categoryinof this quadrant,
thematic
relevance in the literature. In the driving themes quadrant, we find core concepts such as
“sustainable development”, “circular economy”, and “decision making”. These themes are
central to ongoing research, underscoring the strong emphasis on integrating sustainability
and circular economy principles within the fashion industry. Additionally, topics such
as “recycling”, “human”, and “waste management” feature in this quadrant, suggesting
that efficient material recovery and management are considered essential for achieving
circularity objectives.
Emerging themes occupy a less central role in current discussions but show potential
for future importance. For instance, “additives” and “biodegradability” are categorized
here, with biodegradability likely to gain traction as advances in technology and regulatory
changes encourage the adoption of more sustainable materials.
The basic themes quadrant includes the foundational elements of the field, including
“consumption behavior”, “perception”, and “marketing”. These terms reflect the impor-
tance of understanding market dynamics and consumer attitudes, which are crucial for
promoting circular fashion. Finally, the niche themes quadrant includes specialized topics
blending economic and environmental dimensions, such as “carbon dioxide”, “costs”, and
“bio-based”. These keywords highlight the potential benefits of a bio-based economy.
 portance of understanding market dynamics and consumer a itudes, which are crucial
for promoting circular fashion. Finally, the niche themes quadrant includes specialized
topics blending economic and environmental dimensions, such as “carbon dioxide”,
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9971
“costs”, and “bio-based”. These keywords highlight the potential benefits of a bio-based
6 of 35
economy.

Figure 4. Thematic map (circular fashion and circular premium).

Figure 4. Thematic map (circular fashion and circular premium).
2.2. Traditional Leather and Sustainable Alternatives
2.2. Traditional
The second Leather
area and Sustainable
of research aimedAlternatives
at evaluating the environmental impact of tra-
ditional
The second area of research aimed atthe
leather and vegan leather within fashion industry
evaluating [56,57,61]. Toimpact
the environmental this end,of atradi-
systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted, following the Preferred Reporting
tional leather and vegan leather within the fashion industry [56,57,61]. To this end, a sys- Items
for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [62]. Articles were se-
tematic literature review (SLR) was conducted, following the Preferred Reporting Items
lected and, where appropriate, excluded following a full-text review. The search was based
foronSystematic
the followingReviews
keywords:and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [62]. Articles were se-
lected (“Leather
and, where OR appropriate,
Vegan leather”)excluded following a full-text
AND (“Environmental impact” ORreview. The search
“pollution”) AND was
based on the following keywords:
(“fashion industry” OR “fashion” OR “clothing” OR “accessories”).
(“Leather
Sixty-eightORrelevant
Vegan leather”) AND
articles were (“Environmental
retrieved. As illustratedimpact” OR A3,
in Figure “pollution”)
studies onAND
this topicindustry”
(“fashion increased OR
notably aroundOR
“fashion” 2020, aligning with
“clothing” OR the broader rise in scientific output
“accessories”).
related to circular
Sixty-eight fashion.
relevant Figures
articles 5 and
were A4 further
retrieved. Asshow the geographical
illustrated distribution
in Figure A3, studies of
on this
the
topic
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER research, with India (29), Italy (22), China (20), and the United Kingdom
increased notably around 2020, aligning with the broader rise in scientific
REVIEW (11) leading in 36
output
7 of
scientific production; in fact, with darker colors indicating regions with higher levels of
related to circular fashion. Figures 5 and A4 further show the geographical distribution of
scientific output. These nations also represent key regions for global leather production.
the research, with India (29), Italy (22), China (20), and the United Kingdom (11) leading
in scientific production; in fact, with darker colors indicating regions with higher levels of
scientific output. These nations also represent key regions for global leather production.

Figure 5. Scientific production by nation (leather theme).

Figure 5. Scientific production by nation (leather theme).

Table 2 presents the top five authors and journals contributing to research in this area.
Among the journals, the Journal of Cleaner Production stands out as a primary outlet.

Table 2. Top five authors and journals (leather).

 Sustainability 2024, 16, 9971 Figure 5. Scientific production by nation (leather theme). 7 of 35

Table 2 presents the top five authors and journals contributing to research in this area.
AmongTable
the journals, thethe
2 presents Journal of Cleaner
top five authorsProduction stands
and journals out as a primary
contributing outlet.
to research in this area.
Among the journals, the Journal of Cleaner Production stands out as a primary outlet.
Table 2. Top five authors and journals (leather).

Authors Table 2. Top five authors and journals Sources

Articles (leather). Articles
Bandinelli, Romeo
Authors
3
Articles
Journal of Cleaner Production
Sources
4 Articles
Ciarapica, Philip Emanuel 3 Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2
Bandinelli, Romeo 3 Journal of Cleaner Production 4
Ciarapica, Philip
Icams Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
Stefano, DottiEmanuel 33 2 2
Icams Proceedings of Materials and Systems
the International Conference on Advanced Materials and
Stefano, Dotti 3 2
Palomino, Elisa 3 Procedia Environmental Science, Systems
Engineering and Management 2
Palomino,
Stay, Barbara Elisa 33 Procedia Environmental
Proceedings of the Summer Science, Engineering
School Francesco and Management
Turco 2 2
Stay, Barbara 3 Proceedings of the Summer School Francesco Turco 2

Figure 6 displays the word cloud, in which “leather” and “fashion” appear promi-
nent, directly
Figure referencing theword
6 displays the material under
cloud, study
in which and its context
“leather” withinappear
and “fashion” the fashion in-
prominent,
dustry. Other terms of similar prominence include “sustainability”, “environmental im-
directly referencing the material under study and its context within the fashion industry.
pact”,
Otherand “lifeof
terms cycle assessment”
similar (LCA).
prominence include “sustainability”, “environmental impact”, and
“life cycle assessment” (LCA).

Figure 6. Word cloud (leather theme).

Figure 6. Word cloud (leather theme).
In the co-occurrence network (Figure 7), the term “leather” stands out as the central
node, underscoring its primary focus in the research. From this central node, two distinct
clusters are evident: one addressing environmental impacts and sustainable practices, and
another centered on industrial processes and specific issues related to tanning.
The first cluster, highlighted in red, includes terms such as “environmental impact”,
“life cycle”, “sustainable development”, and “carbon footprint”. These interrelated terms
emphasize the comprehensive assessment of leather’s environmental impacts, the need
for responsible environmental management, and strategies for sustainable development.
In addition, a notable triangular relationship can be observed between “life cycle”, “envi-
ronmental impact”, and “life cycle assessment”, underscoring the importance of assessing
environmental impacts throughout the entire product life cycle—from resource sourcing to
production and eventual disposal.
The second cluster, in blue, focuses on industrial and technical aspects, featuring terms
such as “tanning”, “leather industry”, “textile industry”, and “pollution control”. The
presence of “chromium” within this cluster is significant, as it is commonly used in the
tanning process and poses serious environmental and health risks, due to its toxicity.
Nodes such as “recycling” and “waste management” reflect the industry’s growing
emphasis on sustainable recycling practices and efficient waste management. Terms such
as “chemical oxygen demand” further highlight concerns related to chemical usage and the
resulting environmental impacts.
 The presence of “chromium” within this cluster is significant, as it is commonly u
the tanning process and poses serious environmental and health risks, due to its to
Nodes such as “recycling” and “waste management” reflect the industry’s gr
emphasis on sustainable recycling practices and efficient waste management. Term
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9971 as “chemical oxygen demand” further highlight concerns related to8chemical
of 35 usag
the resulting environmental impacts.

Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 36

Figure 7. Co-occurrence network
Figure (leather theme).
7. Co-occurrence network (leather theme).

The thematic map (Figure 8) identifies

The thematic key themes
map (Figure within leather
8) identifies research,
key themes categorized
within leather research, c
“leather to
according industry” rized according to relevance and level of development. Themesthe
relevanceand
andthe broader
level of “textile industry”.
development. Themes This placement
such as reinforces
“environmental sig-as “environm
impact”
such
nificant
and role of are
“life cycle” the leather
central, sector
as theyin the textile
enable a industry,
comprehensive with themes like
understanding“leather”
of theand
envi-
impact” and “life cycle” are central, as they enable a comprehensive understanding
“tanning” emerging
ronmental effects of as foundational
leather production,
environmental to discussions
effects offrom of sustainable
rawproduction,
leather practices
material sourcing
from raw and industrial
to material
product sourcing
disposal.to produ
processes.
Within this context,posal.
“product design”
Within plays a“product
this context, crucial role.
design” plays a crucial role.
Niche themes include “indigenous people”, “leather production”, and “subsi
lifestyles”. These themes offer valuable perspectives on specific cultural and technic
ets of leather production. Additionally, the process by which leather becomes “hydr
bic” during tanning is situated between motor and niche topics, aligning closely wit

Figure
Figure 8. 8. Thematicmap
Thematic map(leather
(leathertheme).
theme).

To refine the data set, the PRISMA model was applied (Figure 9) to systematically
exclude papers based on several criteria. Duplicates were removed, as were articles that
fell outside the specified time range (2018–2024) and studies that did not directly address
the topic of interest. Additionally, only open-access articles were included to ensure ac-
cessibility for all readers. Further exclusion criteria were applied, as follows:
 Sustainability 2024, 16, 9971 9 of 35

Niche themes include “indigenous people”, “leather production”, and “subsistence

lifestyles”. These themes offer valuable perspectives on specific cultural and technical facets
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW
of leather production. Additionally, the process by which leather becomes “hydrophobic” 1
during tanning is situated between motor and niche topics, aligning closely with both
“leather industry” and the broader “textile industry”. This placement reinforces the sig-
nificant role of the leather sector in the textile industry, with themes like “leather” and
have proposed
“tanning” emerging innovative methods
as foundational to mitigate
to discussions the environmental
of sustainable impact of tan
practices and industrial
processes.
These include approaches to enhance chromium absorption in products, recycle
To refine the data set, the PRISMA model was applied (Figure 9) to systematically
mium solutions, and introduce chemical-free tanning pretreatments [63]. Another
exclude papers based on several criteria. Duplicates were removed, as were articles that
ising technique
fell outside involves
the specified the
time use(2018–2024)
range of electronandbeams
studiesasthat
tanning
did notagents, which could s
directly address
icantly
the topicreduce wastewater
of interest. production
Additionally, [67]. Additionally,
only open-access the substitution
articles were included to ensure of che
accessibility for all readers. Further exclusion criteria were applied, as
agents with various enzymes in the tanning process shows a high potential for enfollows:
• E1:benefits
mental studies focused exclusively
and cost savingson[64].
traditional leather with no consideration of alterna-
tive materials; and
• E2: studies with limited geographical focus.

Figure 9. PRISMA diagram.

Figure 9. PRISMA diagram.
Leather remains a highly demanded material in the fashion industry, and its produc-
tion and processing, which are still largely reliant on traditional methods, have significant
Recent innovations
environmental consequencesin leather
[63]. Dueprocessing
to its centralare
rolealso introducing
in global trade and more sustainable
fashion, the
ods. Forindustry
leather instance,
hasNature-L ®
been drawing leather uses
increased high-quality
scrutiny hides tanned
[64]. In developed with
countries, biodegra
com-
organic materials, avoiding the use of hazardous heavy metals such as chromium
Similarly, some manufacturers are producing chrome-free and biodegradable l
through short supply chains [69]. The Italian tannery industry, for instance, has ach
notable reductions in resource consumption through organizational and technologic
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9971 10 of 35

panies in this sector (and beyond) face stringent environmental regulations. However,
developing countries often impose less rigorous oversight, allowing for more environmen-
tally detrimental practices [63].
Among the most environmentally critical stages of leather production, slaughtering
and tanning—often related to shoe production—were identified as particularly signifi-
cant [65]. Tanning, in particular, was shown to be the most environmentally harmful
stage, due to the intensive chemical treatments needed to enhance durability and prevent
degradation [66]. This treatment frequently leads to the release of hazardous chemicals into
water systems or the air, posing risks to both environmental and worker health. Recent
studies have proposed innovative methods to mitigate the environmental impact of tanning.
These include approaches to enhance chromium absorption in products, recycle chromium
solutions, and introduce chemical-free tanning pretreatments [63]. Another promising
technique involves the use of electron beams as tanning agents, which could significantly
reduce wastewater production [67]. Additionally, the substitution of chemical agents with
various enzymes in the tanning process shows a high potential for environmental benefits
and cost savings [64].
Recent innovations in leather processing are also introducing more sustainable meth-
ods. For instance, Nature-L® leather uses high-quality hides tanned with biodegradable
organic materials, avoiding the use of hazardous heavy metals such as chromium [68]. Sim-
ilarly, some manufacturers are producing chrome-free and biodegradable leather through
short supply chains [69]. The Italian tannery industry, for instance, has achieved notable
reductions in resource consumption through organizational and technological improve-
ments [70].
The leather sector is now the second-largest user of natural dyes after textiles, ac-
counting for approximately 12% of the global market, according to Grand View Research.
Natural dyes, derived from renewable resources, offer an alternative to synthetic dyes,
though further analysis is needed to fully establish their viability in commercial leather
production [71]. Another major issue in the production process pertains to material waste.
In this context, new technologies, such as laser diodes, are being introduced to produce
complex shapes and very small objects while minimizing waste [72].
In contrast to traditional leather, synthetic leathers—often referred to as “ecological
leathers” or “eco-leathers”—are made from PVC and PU, and are commonly known
as “pleather”. Vegan leather, produced without animal products, is made from natural
and/or synthetic materials [73], including plant-based or biodegradable waste sources
such as pineapple, cactus, corn, apple, and flowers. Such production aligns with SDG 15,
emphasizing the protection of terrestrial ecosystems [74].
Research has confirmed the feasibility of producing leather from such alternative,
primarily waste-based materials, in alignment with circular economy principles. For
example, leather derived from mushrooms grown on bread waste seeks to replicate the
collagen proteins of animal leather with fungal proteins. The process of making this leather
incorporates techniques from the biotechnology, traditional leather, and paper industries
to support scalability into the future [75]. Vegan leather created from mycelium fungus
was also shown to demonstrate significant sustainable potential [73]. This type of leather
has gained popularity as an ethical, cruelty-free alternative to animal leather and plastic,
offering a reduced environmental impact. However, it is important to critically assess
whether this shift truly aligns with ethical and environmentally sustainable consumerism.
Vegetable-based leather production, for instance, may still generate environmental issues
due to land-use changes, increased water and energy consumption, and impacts from
polymer production [61].
Finally, transparency across the production chain may be highly relevant to sustain-
ability initiatives. In the Italian apparel and leather sector, studies have demonstrated a
significant relationship between product value and certification, with certified products
often perceived as more valuable [76]. Blockchain technology has emerged as a promising
tool in this area, enabling traceability and the provision of accurate data, from raw material
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9971 11 of 35

sourcing to final disposal. The integration of blockchain with LCA could further enhance
the traceability and monitoring of environmental impacts throughout the product life
cycle [77].
Despite the growing interest in vegan leather, research on its environmental impact
relative to traditional leather remains limited. In addition, differences in pollution levels
between the vegan and traditional leather industries have not been conclusively established.

3. Methodology
Section 3.1 aims at addressing RO1, concerning the social analysis of consumer behav-
ior. Section 3.2 refers to RO2, proposing a strategic analysis involving some stakeholder
categories.

3.1. Online Survey

The online survey method is widely recognized in the literature for its efficiency
and speed in gathering consumer insights, making it particularly suitable for research
concerning sustainable behaviors within the fashion industry [44,78]. In the present study,
a structured questionnaire was constructed (using Google Forms) to explore purchasing
habits related to traditional leather and assess consumer openness to sustainable alterna-
tives. The questionnaire was organized into four sections, with the first section dedicated
to “Demographics” (aimed at defining the consumer profile). This section included the
following six questions:
1. Age
2. Gender: male, female, prefer not to specify
3. Qualification: high school diploma, bachelor’s degree, master’s/doctoral degree
4. Occupation: unemployed*, student, worker
5. Area of membership: north, central, south
6. Income bracket: EUR 0–20,000, EUR 20,001–40,000, EUR 40,001–60,000, EUR
60,001–80,000, EUR > 80,000.
The questionnaire then moved to assess respondents’ attitudes toward sustainability,
both generally and in relation to consumption patterns within the apparel industry. Many
questions in this section employed a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5, allowing respondents
to indicate their level of agreement or frequency of behavior, with 1 and 5 representing
opposite extremes. This second section, titled “Perception of sustainability: From daily life
to the fashion industry”, included the following questions:
7. How important do you consider sustainability in your daily life? (1 = not at all
important, 5 = very important)
8. What sustainable behaviors do you engage in within your daily life? Options: recy-
cling, using environmentally friendly products, minimizing water waste, and using
sustainable transportation. (1 = never, 5 = very often)
9. How aware are you of the clothing industry’s environmental impact? (1 = not at all,
5 = very much)
10. What sustainable actions characterize your clothing buying habits? Options: buying
second-hand garments, checking garment composition, checking garment origin, us-
ing products throughout their useful life, and donating unused garments. (1 = never,
5 = very often)
11. How often do you buy products from fast fashion brands? (1 = never, 5 = very often)
In the third section, titled “Awareness and buying habits of various types of leather”,
the questionnaire shifted focus to consumer behaviors toward traditional, synthetic, and
vegan leather. For questions referring to a “specific reference product”, respondents
answered separately for bags and shoes to determine if attitudes differed between these
product types. The questions in this section included:
12. How much are you willing* to pay for this (specific reference product)? If fast fashion:
EUR < 30, EUR 30–40, EUR 41–50, EUR 51–60, EUR 61–70, EUR 71–80; if second-hand:
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9971 12 of 35

EUR < 30, EUR 30–40, EUR 41–50, EUR 51–60, EUR 61–70, EUR 71–80; if made from
sustainable materials: EUR < 30, EUR 30–40, EUR 41–50, EUR 51–60, EUR 61–70, EUR
71–80.
13. How much does pricing influence your choice between traditional, synthetic, and
vegan leather? (1 = not at all, 5 = very much).
14. Do you buy leather products? YES/NO
15. Which of the following statements do you believe is correct?
- Traditional leather = synthetic leather
- Traditional leather = vegan leather
- Synthetic leather = vegan leather
- None of the above
The fourth and final section of the questionnaire, titled “Traditional leather and sus-
tainable alternatives: Analysis of consumer preferences”, comprised the following five
questions:
16. What features do you most consider when buying a traditional leather garment?
Options: durability, aesthetics, social status, quality, price, and trendiness
17. Would you be interested in trying this specific product made from alternative materials
to traditional leather? (1 = not at all interested, 5 = very interested)
18. How much more would you be willing* to pay for this specific product made from
alternative materials to traditional leather? Options: EUR < 10, EUR 10–20, EUR
21–30, EUR 31–40, EUR 41–50, and EUR > 50
19. What features do you most consider when purchasing a vegan leather garment?
Options: durability, aesthetics, social status, quality, price, and trendiness
20. How important do you think it is for the fashion industry to increase efforts to
promote products made from vegan leather instead of traditional leather? (1 = not at
all important, 5 = very important)
To analyze the relationships between variables and test the research hypotheses, Mann–
Whitney tests and Kruskal–Wallis tests were conducted. Additionally, a cluster analysis
using the k-means algorithm was performed to identify potential homogeneous groups
within the data.

3.2. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

The operations research methodology of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA)
is widely used for evaluating and comparing multiple alternatives. This methodology
has been extensively applied within the context of the SDGs [1], including in the textile
sector, with the aim of synthesizing complex data and identifying the most sustainable op-
tions [79,80]. The MCDA process involves the assignation of weights and values to criteria,
which are subsequently aggregated to calculate a sustainability indicator to facilitate the
selection of the most viable alternative among the options under consideration [48]. In
practical application, the sustainable indicator is derived by multiplying a row vector (1,
n), representing the criteria weights, and a column vector (n,1), representing the values
assigned to the alternatives. Here, the value “n” indicates the number of criteria considered
in the analysis. The following steps are followed:
• definition and description of alternatives;
• definition and description of criteria; and
• identification of experts.
Table 3 proposes the three alternatives evaluated in this study. Before the full analysis
was conducted with the expert participants, two academics engaged in an online interview
to review and provide feedback on the proposed alternatives and criteria. Their input led
to several refinements, including a reduction in the number of criteria from 13 to 10 and
a modification of certain criteria to enhance clarity and relevance. The classification of
alternatives proposed here aligns with the reference framework provided in [58].
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9971 13 of 35

Table 3. List of alternatives.

Number Alternative Description

Leather derived from animals, known for its durability and historical use across industries such
A1 Traditional leather
as apparel, interior design, and automotive manufacturing.
Materials that mimic the look and feel of leather but are produced using fossil-based sources
A2 Synthetic leather
such as polyurethane (PU) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Marketed as a cruelty free.
Leather alternatives made without animal products, sourced from plant-based materials (e.g.,
A3 Vegan leather cactus, mushrooms, pineapple) or environmentally-friendly synthetics (e.g., organic-origin
polymers).

The criteria selected for this analysis were designed to enable a comprehensive and
multifaceted evaluation of various types of leather, with a focus on sustainability dimen-
sions (Table 4). These criteria were chosen to support an integrated assessment framework
aimed at guiding both companies and consumers toward more informed and responsible
decision-making.

Table 4. List of criteria.

Number Criteria Description

Utilization of plant waste or plant-based raw materials in leather production
Use of materials from plant
C1 to minimize reliance on non-renewable resources and reduce the overall
waste/plant sources
environmental impact.
Adoption of technologies and processes that lower greenhouse gas and
C2 Reducing emissions pollutant emissions, including energy improvements and renewable energy
use.
Processes that minimize the use of harmful chemicals and reduce pollutant
Tanning processes with low
C3 discharges during leather tanning, with the aim of achieving
environmental impact
environmentally and socioeconomically sustainable production.
Consumer education about sustainable purchasing choices to encourage
C4 Responsible consumption education
eco-friendly consumption behaviors that reduce environmental impacts.
Partnerships among various actors in the production chain to collect and
C5 Sustainable collaborations reuse materials such as used leather, fostering sustainability and advancing
the circular economy.
Technologies for recycling and sustainably managing leather at the end of its
C6 End-of-life technologies for leather
life cycle, emphasizing waste reduction and resource recovery.
Application of sustainability principles during the leather product design to
C7 Ecodesign of leather products reduce environmental impacts, including the use of eco-friendly materials
and processes.
Supply chain transparency and Transparency and traceability throughout the production chain, supported
C8
product certification by certifications that verify sustainability and product authenticity.
Social impact of vegan leather The social implications of vegan leather production, with a focus on ethical
C9
production labor practices, workers’ rights, and contributions to local communities.
Economic benefits of circular business models (promoting reuse, recycling,
C10 Circular business opportunities
and waste reduction) to create new markets and revenue streams.

Ten experts were chosen from three stakeholder categories: academics, consultants,
and professionals in the fashion industry (Table A1). The group consisted of 60% female
participants. Experts were purposively selected through an evaluation of LinkedIn profiles
indicating a minimum of 5 years of experience (or 10 years in the case of academics). Data
collection took place in July and August 2024. Experts were provided with an Excel spread-
sheet containing both the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and a 10-point value scale for
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9971 14 of 35

evaluation. To ensure clarity, the spreadsheet included detailed instructions, and an op-
tional meeting was offered to explain the study objectives and data collection methodology.
The AHP method employed a scale of 1–9 [81], with 1 indicating equal preference
between two compared criteria while 9 denotes an extreme preference for one criterion.
The reliability of the results was ensured by a consistency ratio below 0.10. Using this
method, the relative importance of the criteria was determined. The second evaluation
method required experts to assign a value to each alternative, based on the criteria given,
according to a 10-point scale ranging from 1 (worst performance) to 10 (best performance) [48].
Unlike the AHP, this method did not include specific parameters for which the robustness
of the responses could be evaluated.

4. Results—Consumer Analysis
The following section, addressing RO1, begins with an analysis of the sample, based
on the first section of the questionnaire (Section 4.1). It then explores perceptions of
sustainability, in both everyday contexts and the fashion industry, corresponding to the
second section of the questionnaire (Section 4.2). The subsequent sections explore the core
focus of the study, offering general observations about leather (Section 4.3) and specific
insights on two product categories: bags and shoes (Section 4.4). Finally, Section 4.5 presents
the results of the cluster analysis.

4.1. Sample Analysis

The questionnaire was completed by 430 consumer respondents, aged 18–75 years,
with an average age of 34 years. The sample was predominantly female (58.1% vs. 41.4%
male). Respondents were further segmented by age and gender into the following groups:
(i) women under 30 years old (n = 140); (ii) men under 30 years old (n = 118); (iii) women
over 30 years old (n = 112); and (iv) men over 30 years old (n = 60).
Most respondents were from central Italy (73.7%), with the remainder equally divided
between northern and southern Italy. Regarding educational qualification, the largest group
held a bachelor’s degree (36%), followed by respondents with a master’s degree (30.5%).
Additionally, 12% possessed a master’s or doctoral degree, while 20% had a high school
diploma. Regarding employment status, most respondents were workers (58%), followed
by students (37%). A smaller percentage were unemployed (5%). The most common
income bracket was EUR 20,001–40,000 (38%), followed by EUR 0–20,000 (33%).

4.2. Perception of Sustainability: From Everyday Life to the Fashion Industry

The questionnaire featured a section dedicated to sustainability, given its significance
to consumer attitudes. In this context, sustainability was not limited to the environmental
domain, but also encompassed respondents’ preferences and ethical decision-making. All
questions in this section utilized a 5-point Likert scale as the reference framework. Re-
garding everyday behaviors, respondents indicated a strong tendency to separate waste
(4.17) and considerable attention to reducing water waste (3.75). However, more neutral
ratings were observed for the use of environmentally friendly products (3.14) and sustain-
able transportation (2.99). This suggests that personal, convenience-driven choices take
precedence over broader sustainability-oriented behaviors.
The findings highlighted regional variations in Italy regarding waste separation, re-
flecting different levels of implementation across territories. Similarly, water waste emerged
as a critical issue, exacerbated by recurring droughts linked to climate change. Respondents
were asked to answer three specific questions related to sustainability (Table 5).
The results showed a mean score of 4.07 for the relevance of sustainability, indicating
substantial awareness and interest in sustainability issues among respondents. This finding
suggests that the sample was predominantly attentive to sustainability, as evidenced
by the majority of responses (331) falling within the highest Likert scale scores (4 and
5). Ideally, this level of concern would be reflected in respondents’ daily habits and
decision-making processes.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9971 15 of 35

Table 5. Sustainability relevance, environmental impact of the garment industry, and fast fashion
purchasing.

How Important Do You Consider How Aware Are You of the Clothing How Often Do You Buy Fast
Sustainability in Your Daily Life? Industry’s Environmental Impact? Fashion Products?
Average value 4.07 3.66 2.81
Under-30 women 4.00 3.75 3.23
Under-30 men 3.89 3.42 2.52
Over-30 women 4.27 3.83 2.77
Over-30 men 4.27 3.65 2.58

Regarding the environmental impact of the fashion industry, the mean score was 3.66,
reflecting moderate awareness of this issue. However, this level of awareness did not match
the broader concern for sustainability. This discrepancy may be attributed to limited media
coverage and informational exposure regarding the fashion industry’s environmental
impact, compared to other industries. For instance, respondents may have lacked sufficient
knowledge about the fashion industry’s unsustainable practices, such as high-water usage,
significant CO2 emissions, and pollution associated with fabric production and processing.
The results for fast fashion purchasing offered critical insights into the alignment
between respondents’ environmental awareness and their actual consumer behavior. The
average value of 2.81 (with lower values more preferred) revealed a neutral stance, suggest-
ing that respondents did not entirely avoid fast fashion, potentially due to the competitive
pricing and product accessibility. However, the questionnaire did not assess the role of
taste and style preferences in determining fast fashion purchasing behavior.
The sample was further analyzed with respect to gender and age. On average, re-
spondents aged older than 30 years considered sustainability more important in their
daily lives compared to their younger counterparts. Among those aged under 30 years,
women placed greater importance on sustainability relative to men. Additionally, women
in both age groups demonstrated greater awareness of the environmental impact of the
apparel industry. Conversely, men, despite showing lower awareness of the industry’s
environmental impact, reported fewer fast fashion purchases than women in both age
groups. Notably, the group most likely to buy fast fashion was comprised of women under
30 years old. Among men, there was a slight decrease in fast fashion purchasing from the
under-30 to the over-30 age group.
To assess the statistical significance of these differences, a Kruskal–Wallis test was
conducted to compare responses among the four groups. The results indicated a p-value
of 0.017 for the significance of sustainability, 0.024 for awareness of the fashion industry’s
environmental impact, and 0.083 for fast fashion purchasing. These findings confirm that at
least one group had a mean rank significantly different from the others, thereby verifying
the hypothesis of statistical validity.
Further analysis of sustainable behaviors within the apparel sector, using the Likert
scale, was conducted across the demographic groups (Table 6). Due to variability in the
results, a box plot was also proposed (Figure 10).

Table 6. Sustainable consumption behaviors.

Buying Checking Using Garments Donating Garments

Checking
Second-Hand Garment Throughout Their That Are No Longer
Garment Origin
Garments Composition Useful Life Used
Average value 2.57 2.99 2.95 4.04 4.10
Under-30 women 2.42 2.80 2.76 3.94 4.10
Under-30 men 2.70 3.06 2.96 4.00 4.13
Over-30 women 2.67 3.11 3.12 4.12 4.09
Over-30 men 2.50 3.12 3.12 4.23 4.03
Sustainability 2024,
Sustainability 2024, 16,
16, 9971
x FOR PEER REVIEW 17
16of 36
of 35

Figure 10. Sustainable behaviors in the apparel industry.

Figure 10. Sustainable behaviors in the apparel industry.

4.3. Consumer Analysis

The results showedof that,
Leather Products
while respondents placed strong emphasis on sustainability,
this was
The only
thirdpartially
and fourth reflected in their
sections of theclothing-specific behaviors.the
questionnaire addressed For example,
topic respon-
of traditional
dents reported paying attention to certain sustainable actions, such as
leather and its existing alternatives. The results indicated that a majority of respondentsdonating unused
clothes
(54.7%)(4.10) and using
purchased garments
traditional for their
leather entire useful
products, life (4.04).
underscoring itsHowever,
continuedbehaviors
popularity such
as
as checking
a material garment
(Table 7). composition (2.99) and origin (2.95) received more neutral ratings.
Notably, the lowest rating (2.57) was associated with buying second-hand clothes.
TableThese findings
7. Do you indicate varied
buy traditional leatherconsumer
products?perceptions of sustainability linked to specific
behaviors, suggesting that sustainability may not consistently influence clothing choices.
Among the evaluated Yes actions, all of which are potentially sustainable, Nosignificant differences
Under-30 Over-30 Under-30
in behavior emerged. The activity with the least variability in responses was using Over-30 garments
Woman 0.55 their useful life, while
throughout 0.69
the greatest variability 0.45
was observed for buying 0.31 second-
Man 0.38
hand garments. A Kruskal–Wallis 0.60 test was conducted 0.62
to assess differences0.40 among the
groups. The test yielded a p-value of 0.0092, confirming the existence of statistically
Further
significant analysis by
differences in age and gender
behaviors relatedrevealed that men and women over 30 years old
to sustainability.
were more likely to purchase leather products compared to their younger counterparts.
4.3.
ThisConsumer Analysisfinding,
is an interesting of LeatherasProducts
it suggests that younger individuals may be more open
to adopting
The third alternatives
and fourthtosections
traditional
of theleather, potentially
questionnaire due to the
addressed their lackofoftraditional
topic an estab-
leather and its existing alternatives. The results indicated that a
lished habit of purchasing traditional products. Leather purchases were more commonmajority of respondents
(54.7%)
among purchased
women than traditional leather products,
men, particularly in theunderscoring
under-30 groups,its continued
in whichpopularity
negativeasre-
a
material
sponses to (Table 7).
this prompt were predominant.
To explore the drivers behind the purchase of traditional leather products, responses
Table 7. Do the
regarding youmost
buy traditional leather products?
valued characteristics were analyzed using a box plot, segmented by
age and gender (Figure 11, Table 8). The analysis indicated that durability, aesthetics, and
Yes No
quality were the most important a ributes, with medians consistently hovering in the 4–
5 range across all demographicUnder-30 groups. The Over-30
low variabilityUnder-30
in these a ributes Over-30
suggests a
Woman 0.55 0.69 0.45 0.31
strong consensus among consumers regarding their importance. Notably, women, both
Man 0.38 0.60 0.62 0.40
under and over the age of 30 years, demonstrated greater consistency in their ratings com-
pared to men. Conversely, a ributes such as price, social status, and trendiness showed
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9971 17 of 35

Further analysis by age and gender revealed that men and women over 30 years old
were more likely to purchase leather products compared to their younger counterparts.
This is an interesting finding, as it suggests that younger individuals may be more open to
adopting alternatives to traditional leather, potentially due to their lack of an established
habit of purchasing traditional products. Leather purchases were more common among
women than men, particularly in the under-30 groups, in which negative responses to this
prompt were predominant.
To explore the drivers behind the purchase of traditional leather products, responses
regarding the most valued characteristics were analyzed using a box plot, segmented by
age and gender (Figure 11, Table 8). The analysis indicated that durability, aesthetics, and
quality were the most important attributes, with medians consistently hovering in the
4–5 range across all demographic groups. The low variability in these attributes suggests
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW
a
18 of 36
strong consensus among consumers regarding their importance. Notably, women, both
under and over the age of 30 years, demonstrated greater consistency in their ratings
compared to men. Conversely, attributes such as price, social status, and trendiness showed
greater variability and
greater variability and lower
lower median
median ratings,
ratings, especially
especially among
among male
male respondents.
respondents. This
This
suggests that these factors may be perceived as less significant overall.
suggests that these factors may be perceived as less significant overall.

Figure
Figure 11.
11. A ributes considered
Attributes considered in
in the
the purchase of traditional
purchase of traditional leather.
leather.

Table 8.
Table 8. Attributes
A ributes considered in the
considered in the purchase
purchase of
of traditional
traditional leather.
leather.

Durability Aesthetics Quality Social Status Price Trendiness

Durability Aesthetics Quality Social Status Price Trendiness
Average value 4.08 3.97 4.22 2.22 3.74 2.60
Average
Under-30 value
women 4.094.08 3.97
3.96 4.22
4.11 2.22
2.14 3.74
3.79 2.60
2.54
Under-30 women 4.09 3.96 4.11 2.14 3.79 2.54
Under-30
Under-30men
men 4.124.12 3.94
3.94 4.26
4.26 2.12
2.12 3.70
3.70 2.59
2.59
Over-30
Over-30women
women 4.114.11 4.03
4.03 4.28
4.28 2.23
2.23 3.63
3.63 2.60
2.60
Over-30men
Over-30 men 3.953.95 3.97
3.97 4.28
4.28 2.60
2.60 3.92
3.92 2.80
2.80

Parallel to the previous analysis of the factors driving the purchase of traditional
leather products, the same set of drivers was examined and applied to the purchase of
vegan leather garments (Figure 12, Table 9).

Table 9. A ributes considered in the purchase of vegan leather.

Sustainability 2024, 16, 9971 18 of 35

Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW

Parallel to the previous analysis of the factors driving the purchase of traditional
19 of 36
leather products, the same set of drivers was examined and applied to the purchase of
vegan leather garments (Figure 12, Table 9).

Figure 12.
Figure 12. Attributes
A ributes considered
considered in
in the
the purchase
purchase of
of vegan
vegan leather.
leather.

TableFor vegan leather

9. Attributes garments,
considered the a ributes
in the purchase of durability,
of vegan leather. aesthetics, and quality were
also identified as key factors. The medians for these a ributes remained high (approxi-
mately 4–5) across
Durability all demographic
Aesthetics Qualitygroups.Social
However,
Statuscompared to traditional
Price leather gar-
Trendiness
Average value ments,
4.17 greater variability
4.00 was observed,
4.23 especially
2.38 among women
3.81 aged under 30 years,
2.62
Under-30 women suggesting
4.17 a less uniform
4.06 perception
4.16 of these a ributes.
2.27 Price, social
3.77 status, and trendiness
2.43
Under-30 men exhibited even 3.86
4.12 more pronounced 4.23variability, with
2.34 lower medians, 3.86 particularly 2.69 among fe-
Over-30 women 4.29
male respondents. 4.08 This indicates 4.28a more diverse 2.48
perception of 3.75these a ributes among 2.63 ve-
Over-30 men 4.12 4.05 4.28 2.55 3.96
gan leather buyers, potentially due to limited familiarity with vegan leather and its poten- 2.77
tial.
When
For comparing
vegan a ributes between
leather garments, traditional
the attributes and vegan
of durability, leather,and
aesthetics, a slight increase
quality were
in the importance placed on durability, aesthetics, and quality emerged
also identified as key factors. The medians for these attributes remained high (approx- for vegan leather.
This may
imately reflect
4–5) a consumer
across perception
all demographic that vegan
groups. However, leather products
compared to do not perform
traditional as
leather
well as traditional
garments, leather, thereby
greater variability emphasizing
was observed, theseamong
especially a ributes
womento mitigate
aged underconcerns. For
30 years,
example, durability
suggesting may have
a less uniform been perceived
perception as a guarantee
of these attributes. Price, of long-term
social status, investment.
and trendiness
To examine
exhibited the characteristics
even more most valuedwith
pronounced variability, in the purchase
lower of traditional
medians, leather
particularly gar-
among
ments, a Kruskal–Wallis test was conducted, comparing responses
female respondents. This indicates a more diverse perception of these attributes among across the six groups.
The results
vegan (p-value
leather buyers, < 0.001) indicated
potentially duesignificant
to limiteddifferences
familiarityamong the evaluated
with vegan leather charac-
and its
teristics. A similar analysis was performed for vegan leather garments, yielding the same
potential.
resultWhen
(p-value < 0.001).attributes between traditional and vegan leather, a slight increase in
comparing
Additionally,
the importance the on
placed questionnaire included aand
durability, aesthetics, question
qualityaimed
emergedat assessing
for veganrespondents’
leather. This
current
may awareness
reflect a consumerof various leather
perception alternatives.
that Specifically,
vegan leather productsrespondents
do not perform wereasasked to
well as
identify which of the following options were true: (i) traditional leather
traditional leather, thereby emphasizing these attributes to mitigate concerns. For example, = synthetic leather;
durability mayleather
(ii) traditional have been perceived
= vegan as(iii)
leather; a guarantee
syntheticof long-term
leather = veganinvestment.
leather; and (iv) none
of theToabove
examine(thethe characteristics
correct most10
answer). Table valued in the
presents thepurchase of traditional leather
results, distinguishing gar-
the correct
ments,
response a Kruskal–Wallis test was conducted,
from the three incorrect answers. comparing responses across the six groups.
The results (p-value < 0.001) indicated significant differences among the evaluated charac-
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9971 19 of 35

teristics. A similar analysis was performed for vegan leather garments, yielding the same
result (p-value < 0.001).
Additionally, the questionnaire included a question aimed at assessing respondents’
current awareness of various leather alternatives. Specifically, respondents were asked to
identify which of the following options were true: (i) traditional leather = synthetic leather;
(ii) traditional leather = vegan leather; (iii) synthetic leather = vegan leather; and (iv) none
of the above (the correct answer). Table 10 presents the results, distinguishing the correct
response from the three incorrect answers.

Table 10. Knowledge of the difference between leather types.

Yes No
Under-30 Over 30 Under-30 Over 30
Woman 0.47 0.44 0.53 0.56
Man 0.37 0.38 0.63 0.62

The most selected response was the option stating that traditional leather is equivalent
to synthetic leather (47.9%). In contrast, only 42.3% of respondents correctly identified
that none of the indicated equalities was true. A cluster analysis revealed that, on average,
women demonstrated greater awareness of the differences between leather types, while no
significant variations were observed across age groups.
Another question asked respondents to rate, using a Likert scale, the importance of the
fashion industry’s promotion of vegan leather as an alternative to traditional leather. The
results yielded an average value of 4.32, indicating opportunities for manufacturers and
retailers to invest in targeted marketing strategies, strategic collaborations, and innovative
promotional campaigns. A group analysis showed similar values among women under
30 years old (4.45), men over 30 years old (4.40), and women over 30 years old (4.37).
However, men under 30 years old reported a significantly lower value (4.09).
Regarding price, the questionnaire included a specific question to determine whether
respondents considered it a critical factor, with no preconceptions about its relevance. The
analyses suggested that price was not a critical attribute, although respondents’ stated
preferences may not have aligned with their actual behavior. The Likert scale results yielded
an average value of 3.45, consistent with previous findings. Notably, 70% of respondents
selected values between 3 and 4, suggesting moderate price sensitivity. Women were
generally more price-sensitive than men, and differences were observed between age
groups. The following average values were recorded: women under 30 years old (3.61),
women over 30 years old (3.47), men under 30 years old (2.77), and men over 30 years old
(3.11).

4.4. Focus on Specific Products (Bags and Shoes)

To evaluate consumer habits, specific questions were analyzed regarding the purchase
of leather bags and shoes. The economic aspect emerged as a critical factor in the purchas-
ing decision. Consequently, respondents were asked about their WTP for products in three
distinct categories: fast fashion, second-hand, and products made from sustainable mate-
rials. To facilitate responses, nine price ranges were proposed, offering a comprehensive
selection for both leather bags (Figure 13) and leather shoes (Figure 14).
The highest WTP consistently aligned with the option related to sustainable materials.
However, this does not necessarily imply a stronger inclination to pay more for sustainable
products. In fact, a comparison between fast fashion and second-hand options revealed
the opposite trend. For products made from sustainable materials, the most common
price range indicated was EUR 61–70, with responses skewed toward the upper end. In
contrast, for fast fashion and second-hand products, the typical price range was EUR 41–50.
However, second-hand preferences leaned toward the lower end of this range, while fast
fashion preferences trended toward the upper limit. Across all product categories, women
over 30 years old demonstrated the highest WTP, whereas the lowest WTP was recorded
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9971 20 of 35

by men under 30 years old for sustainable options and women under 30 years old for
fast fashion products. Moreover, respondents older than 30 years consistently proposed
higher values than their younger counterparts. These findings suggest that age may
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW have
21 of 36
a significant influence on WTP in this sector. However, the present findings may also be
attributable to the greater mean income levels of older respondents in the sample.

Figure 13. WTP for leather bags from different sources.

Figure 13. WTP for leather bags from different sources.

The
Theresults
resultsforforshoes
shoesaligned
alignedwith
withthethefindings
findingsfor forhandbags,
handbags,as asrespondents
respondentsassigned
assigned
the highest WTP to products made from sustainable
the highest WTP to products made from sustainable materials. However, materials. However, fast fashion was
fast fashion
valued higher than second-hand options, with the la er being
was valued higher than second-hand options, with the latter being perceived as a lowerperceived as a lower eco-
nomic
economicvalue choice.
value Regarding
choice. price price
Regarding ranges, the results
ranges, remained
the results consistent:
remained shoes made
consistent: shoes
from
madesustainable
from sustainablematerials fell within
materials the EUR
fell within the EUR61–7061–70
range, withwith
range, preferences
preferencesskewed to-
skewed
ward
towardthethe upper
upper end; fast
end; fashion
fast fashionshoes
shoesfell
fellininthe
theEUR
EUR41–50
41–50range,
range,tending
tendingtoward
towardthethe
upper
upper limit; and second-hand
second-handoptionsoptionsalso
alsofell
fellininthethe EUR
EUR 41–50
41–50 range,
range, butbut
withwith prefer-
preferences
ences
leaningleaning
toward toward the limit.
the lower lowerThelimit. The consistency
consistency of theseof theseacross
trends trendsboth
across both
of the of the
analyzed
analyzed
product typesproduct types suggests
suggests that theythatmay they
alsomay
apply alsotoapply
othertoproducts.
other products.
In the In the present
present study,
study,
bags and bags and were
shoes shoesspecifically
were specifically
chosenchosen
due todue theirtocomparable
their comparable
everyday everyday price
price points
points (excluding
(excluding luxury luxury
options).options).
GenderGender
differencesdifferences in WTP
in WTP were were minimal
minimal for shoes.for shoes.
However,
an interesting
However, variation emerged
an interesting variationwith respondents
emerged aged under
with respondents 30 years,
aged underwho reported
30 years, whoa
higher WTP
reported for sustainable
a higher materialsmaterials
WTP for sustainable comparedcomparedto respondents aged over
to respondents 30—contrary
aged over 30—
to the earlier
contrary to theobservations for bags.
earlier observations forFor theFor
bags. fastthe
fashion and second-hand
fast fashion and second-hand options, WTP
options,
differences
WTP differencesbetween the two
between theage
twogroups were were
age groups minimal.
minimal.
An ANOVA
An ANOVA test test conducted
conductedacross
acrossthethethree
threepurchasing
purchasing options for both
options product
for both types
product
revealed
types p = 0, pindicating
revealed statistically
= 0, indicating significant
statistically differences
significant between
differences the other
between theoptions.
other op-
tions.
 Sustainability 2024,
Sustainability 2024, 16,
16, xx FOR
FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of
of 36
36
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9971 PEER REVIEW 22
21 of 35

Figure 14.
Figure 14. WTP
WTP for
for leather
leather shoes
shoes from different
different sources.
Figure 14. WTP for leather shoes from
from different sources.
sources.

Of note,
Of
Of note, in
note, in earlier
inearlier questions,
earlierquestions,
questions, vegan
vegan
veganleather
leather waswas
was
leather included
included within
within
included the category
the
within category of sus-
of
the category sus-of
tainable
sustainable materials
tainable materials but
materials not
butbut explicitly
not not
explicitly differentiated.
differentiated.
explicitly In addition,
In addition,
differentiated. direct comparisons
directdirect
In addition, comparisons
comparisonsbe-
be-
tween bags
tween
between bags
bagsand
and shoes
shoes
and were
were
shoes werenotnot
not made;
made; instead,
instead,
made; specific
specific
instead, WTPWTP
WTP
specific values
values werewere
were
values collected.
collected. To
To
collected.
address
address
To addressthis,
this, responses
responses
this, related
related
responses to leather
to leather
related products
products
to leather and their
and their
products alternatives
alternatives
and their (vegan and
(vegan(vegan
alternatives syn-
and syn-
and
thetic leathers)
thetic leathers)
synthetic leathers)were
were
wereanalyzed.
analyzed.
analyzed.The
The WTP
WTP
The WTP data
data were
were
data categorized
categorized
were categorized into
into six
six
into price
price
six ranges
priceranges for
rangesfor
for
bothbags
both
both bags(Figure
bags (Figure 15)
(Figure 15) and
and shoes
shoes (Figure
(Figure 16).
16).

Leather bag
Leather bag
60€
60€
50€
50€
40€
40€
30€
30€
20€
20€
10€
10€

€€
Woman Man
Woman Man Under
Under Woman
Woman Man Over
Man Over Woman Man
Woman Man Under
Under Woman
Woman Man Over
Man Over
Under 30
Under 30 30
30 Over 30
Over 30 30
30 Under 30
Under 30 30
30 Over 30
Over 30 30
30
Vegan leather
Vegan leather Synthetic leather
Synthetic leather

Figure 15.
Figure 15. WTP
WTP for
for bags
bags made
made from vegan
vegan and vegetable
vegetable leather.
Figure 15. WTP for bags made from
from vegan and
and vegetableleather.
leather.
 WTP. In contrast, among respondents aged over 30 years, men reported a higher WTP.
Across all groups, respondents generally assigned an additional EUR 30 WTP to vegan
leather compared to traditional leather, with the exception of women aged over 30 years.
Notably, the additional WTP for vegan leather consistently exceeded that for synthetic
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9971 22 of 35
leather across all groups, though no variation was observed for women over 30 years old,
who assigned equal value to both alternatives.

Leather shoes
60€

50€

40€

30€

20€

10€

€
Woman Man Under Woman Man Over Woman Man Under Woman Man Over
Under 30 30 Over 30 30 Under 30 30 Over 30 30

Vegan leather Synthetic leather

Figure 16.
Figure 16. WTP for shoes
WTP for shoes made
made from
from vegan
vegan and
and vegetable
vegetable leather.
leather.

The resultsbags,
Regarding for shoes confirmed
a higher WTP was a consistent
observedWTP for the
for both two alternatives
alternative materials: to vegan
tradi-
tional leather:
leather for vegan
fell within the EURleather, WTP
31–40 fell within
range, tending thetoward
EUR 30–40 range,end;
the lower leaning
andtoward the
synthetic
upper limit;
leather and for
fell within the synthetic
EUR 21–30leather, it closelytoward
range, skewed alignedthewith
upper thelimit.
EURThe 30 group
value. analysis
Gender
differences
revealed were
that, notable
among among respondents
respondents aged underunder 30 years,30 years
women old, for whom
exhibited the highest
a higher WTP.
WTP was observed for the vegan option by women and the lowest
In contrast, among respondents aged over 30 years, men reported a higher WTP. Across WTP was observed for
thegroups,
all synthetic option by men.
respondents A comparison
generally assigned between the two
an additional EURproducts
30 WTP revealed
to vegan that WTP
leather
remained consistent
compared to traditional for leather,
men acrosswithall age
the groups, of
exception as women
well as for
aged women
over 30 over 30 years
years. old
Notably,
when
the considering
additional WTPsynthetic
for veganoptions. However, differences
leather consistently emerged
exceeded that in the other
for synthetic leathercontexts
across
all groups,women,
involving though particularly
no variationin was observed
their for women
preference for vegan over 30 years
options. An old,
ANOVAwho test,
assigned
con-
equal value to both alternatives.
ducted specifically for vegan and synthetic leather options across both product types,
Thearesults
yielded p-value for< shoes confirmedsignificant
0.01, indicating a consistentdifferences
WTP for the two alternatives
between groups. to traditional
leather:
The for
finalvegan
questionleather, WTP fell
comparing thewithin the EUR
two products 30–40 range,
assessed leaning
respondents’ toward the
propensity to
upper limit; and
try alternative for synthetic
materials versusleather, it closely
traditional aligned
leather, using with thescale
a Likert EUR(Figure
30 value. 17).Gender
differences weredemonstrated
The results notable among respondentsinterest
respondents’ under in 30trying
years old, for whom
products made the fromhighest
alter-
WTP was observed for the vegan option by women and the lowest
native materials, with an average rating of 4.19 for bags and 3.99 for shoes. The group WTP was observed for
the synthetic option by men. A comparison between the two products
analysis revealed that women, regardless of age or product, consistently provided ratings revealed that WTP
remained
higher than consistent for men
4, indicating across
greater all age
interest groups, as
compared well as
to men. for women
Notably, women overyounger
30 yearsthanold
when considering synthetic options. However, differences emerged
30 years showed the highest interest, particularly for leather bags, with an average rating in the other contexts
involving
or 4.55. Inwomen,contrast,particularly
the lowestinvalues
their preference
(tending towardfor vegan options.
3) were An ANOVA
associated with mentest,
conducted specifically for vegan and
younger than 30 years, regardless of the product. synthetic leather options across both product types,
yielded a p-value < 0.01,
A Kruskal–Wallis indicating
test yielded asignificant differences
p-value < 0.01, between
confirming groups. significant dif-
statistically
ferences between groups with respect to their interest in bags and shoes. propensity to
The final question comparing the two products assessed respondents’
try alternative materials versus traditional leather, using a Likert scale (Figure 17).
The results demonstrated respondents’ interest in trying products made from alter-
native materials, with an average rating of 4.19 for bags and 3.99 for shoes. The group
analysis revealed that women, regardless of age or product, consistently provided ratings
higher than 4, indicating greater interest compared to men. Notably, women younger than
30 years showed the highest interest, particularly for leather bags, with an average rating or
4.55. In contrast, the lowest values (tending toward 3) were associated with men younger
than 30 years, regardless of the product.
A Kruskal–Wallis test yielded a p-value < 0.01, confirming statistically significant
differences between groups with respect to their interest in bags and shoes.
Sustainability 2024,
Sustainability 2024, 16,
16, 9971
x FOR PEER REVIEW 24
23of 36
of 35

1
Woman Man Under Woman Man Over 30 Woman Man Under Woman Man Over 30
Under 30 30 Over 30 Under 30 30 Over 30

Reference product: Leather bag Reference product: Leather shoes

Figure 17. Interest in trying bags and shoes made from alternative materials.
Figure 17. Interest in trying bags and shoes made from alternative materials.

4.5. Cluster Analysis

A further step in the work involved a clustering clustering analysis—a
analysis—a statistical technique used
group data
to group dataintointohomogeneous
homogeneousclusters clusters in in which
which itemsitemsare are
more more similar
similar to one to other
one other
than
to items
than in other
to items clusters.
in other Specific
clusters. questions
Specific questionsfromfromthe questionnaire
the questionnaire werewereselected for this
selected for
analysis, considering
this analysis, considering variables that that
variables could meaningfully
could meaningfully differentiate
differentiategroups. Three
groups. key
Three
demographic
key demographic variables (age,(age,
variables gender, income
gender, bracket)
income were were
bracket) included, as these
included, were more
as these were
likely to influence both awareness and purchasing behavior.
more likely to influence both awareness and purchasing behavior. Additionally, the ques- Additionally, the question
regarding
tion regardingthe importance
the importanceof sustainability was included,
of sustainability as a strong
was included, as aregard
strongfor sustainability
regard for sus-
may permeate
tainability mayvarious
permeate aspects of life,
various including
aspects purchasing
of life, includingand consumption
purchasing and habits related
consumption
to clothing
habits related and to accessories.
clothing andThree other questions
accessories. Three othercentral to the
questions studytotheme
central the study were also
theme
incorporated: (i) consumption
were also incorporated: of traditional
(i) consumption leather products,
of traditional leather(ii) interest in
products, (ii)trying
interestproducts
in try-
made from alternative
ing products made from materials,
alternative andmaterials,
(iii) willingness
and (iii)to willingness
pay extra fortoproducts
pay extra made from
for prod-
alternative materials. Finally, the importance respondents placed
ucts made from alternative materials. Finally, the importance respondents placed on the on the fashion industry’s
promotion of veganpromotion
fashion industry’s leather productsof veganwas leather
included. The selection
products of these specific
was included. questions
The selection of
ensured that the
these specific model remained
questions ensured that manageable
the modeland interpretable.
remained manageable and interpretable.
The
The k-means
k-meansalgorithm
algorithmwas wasapplied
applied to toconduct
conduct thetheanalysis. TheThe
analysis. results showed
results a higha
showed
percentage of between-clusters inertia relative to within-clusters
high percentage of between-clusters inertia relative to within-clusters inertia, demonstrat- inertia, demonstrating
good separation
ing good separation between
between clusters.
clusters. InInparticular,
particular,between-cluster
between-clusterinertia inertia accounted
accounted for for
91.24%
91.24% of the variance, while within-cluster inertia was only 8.76%. Thus, mostmost
of the variance, while within-cluster inertia was only 8.76%. Thus, of theofvar-
the
variance
iance waswas explained
explained byby difference
difference betweenclusters
between clustersrather
ratherthan
thanvariance
variancewithinwithin clusters.
clusters.
The data were grouped into five clusters
The data were grouped into five clusters (Table 11). (Table 11).
Cluster 1, with an average age of 23.8 years and an income range of EUR 20,001–40,000,
was
Tableclassifiable as young individuals with low income. This cluster was predominantly
11. Cluster k-means.
male (61%) and demonstrated a relatively low willingness to pay extra for a bag made
from alternative materials (1.7). They reported a medium-high rating of sustainability Importance(3.9) of
Interest in
and moderate interest in trying new Buy products Willingness to
(3.5). In general, they exhibited Industry
a medium
Trying
Genuspropensity to buy leather products
Importance (0.45). Finally,
Leather Pay Extra they forregarded
a it as quiteActivities
importantto for
Average Income Products
Cluster companies
(0 = man, 1 to promote vegan
Placed on alternatives to traditional
Products Bag Made from leather (4.2). Promote Vegan
Age Band and an incomeMade rangefrom
= Woman) Cluster 2, with an average age
Sustainability (0 =ofno,60.8
1 =years Alternative of EUR 40,001–60,000,
Alternatives to
represented an older demographicYes) with medium-high Alternative
Materialsincome. This clusterTraditional was predom-
inantly female (79%), with a medium-low willingness to payMaterials extra for a bagLeather made from
alternative materials (3.1). They reported a fairly high rating of sustainability (4.4) and
1 23.8 0.39 1.92 3.87 0.45 1.66 3.52 4.17
moderate interest in trying new products (3.5). This cluster exhibited a strong propensity
2 60.8 0.79 2.42 4.37 1.00 3.11 3.47 4.27
3 31.3 0.62 2.19 4.12 0.37 2.95 4.54 4.38
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9971 24 of 35

to buy leather products (1.0) and felt it was important for companies to promote vegan
alternatives to traditional leather (4.3).

Table 11. Cluster k-means.

Willingness Interest in Importance of

Buy Leather to Pay Extra Trying Industry Activities
Genus Importance
Income Products for a Bag Products to Promote Vegan
Cluster Average Age (0 = Man, Placed on
Band (0 = No, Made from Made from Alternatives to
1 = Woman) Sustainability
1 = Yes) Alternative Alternative Traditional
Materials Materials Leather
1 23.8 0.39 1.92 3.87 0.45 1.66 3.52 4.17
2 60.8 0.79 2.42 4.37 1.00 3.11 3.47 4.27
3 31.3 0.62 2.19 4.12 0.37 2.95 4.54 4.38
4 23.8 0.71 1.79 3.95 0.00 4.17 4.53 4.39
5 44.6 0.56 2.34 4.27 0.32 2.96 4.33 4.53

Cluster 3, with an average age of 31.3 years and an income range of 20,001–40,000€,
consisted of young adults with average income. The cluster was mostly female (62%)
and showed a low willingness to pay extra for a bag made from alternative materials
(2.95). They reported a high sustainability rating (4.1) and a very high interest in trying
new products (4.5). This cluster had a rather low propensity to buy leather products (0.4).
Finally, they considered it very important for brands to promote vegan alternatives to
traditional leather (4.4).
Cluster 4, with an average age of 23.8 years and an income range of EUR 0–20,000,
represented a young group with very low income. This cluster was predominantly female
(72%) and reported a high willingness to pay extra for a bag made from alternative materials
(4.2). They showed a medium sustainability rating (3.95) and strong interest in trying
new products (4.5). This cluster exhibited no inclination to buy leather products (0.0).
Finally, they regarded it as very important for companies to promote vegan alternatives to
traditional leather (4.4).
Cluster 5, with an average age of 44.6 years and an income range of EUR 40,001–60,000,
represented a middle-aged group with a middle-income range. The cluster was relatively
balanced in terms of gender and reported a moderate willingness to pay extra for a bag
made from alternative materials (3.0). They exhibited a fairly high sustainability rating (4.3)
and strong interest in trying new products (4.3). This cluster had a low propensity to buy
leather products (0.3). Finally, they considered it very important for companies to promote
vegan alternatives to traditional leather (4.5).

5. Results—Strategic Analysis
This section presents the values for the row vector (Section 5.1) and column vector
(Section 5.2), which were used to calculate the sustainability indicator (Section 5.3).

5.1. Aggregation of Weights—Row Vector

During the data collection phase, a pairwise comparison of the 10 selected criteria
was conducted. While the detailed comparison tables are not included here due to space
constraints, the consistency ratio remained below the threshold of 0.10 for all judgments.
Once the consistency of the evaluations was confirmed, the aggregated results for each
product considered in the work—leather bags (Table 12) and leather shoes (Table 13)—were
summarized. To maintain anonymity, the order of the tables does not correspond to the
order of experts reported in Table A1. Aggregation was performed by assigning equal
weight to all expert judgments.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9971 25 of 35

Table 12. Vector row—leather bags.

E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 E10 Average
C1 0.07 0.11 0.04 0.09 0.08 0.13 0.11 0.09 0.13 0.08 0.093
C2 0.13 0.13 0.19 0.13 0.11 0.17 0.18 0.13 0.20 0.23 0.160
C3 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.15 0.07 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.076
C4 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.13 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.056
C5 0.21 0.17 0.22 0.19 0.21 0.14 0.05 0.23 0.05 0.07 0.158
C6 0.11 0.10 0.05 0.16 0.11 0.09 0.14 0.09 0.06 0.08 0.099
C7 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.08 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.04 0.073
C8 0.05 0.09 0.07 0.04 0.10 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.14 0.09 0.074
C9 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.11 0.048
C10 0.25 0.15 0.25 0.18 0.20 0.07 0.11 0.17 0.14 0.20 0.171
Min weight Max weight

Table 13. Vector row—leather shoes.

E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 E10 Average
C1 0.07 0.11 0.04 0.13 0.09 0.19 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.09 0.107
C2 0.13 0.13 0.19 0.17 0.16 0.09 0.19 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.152
C3 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.10 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.083
C4 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.066
C5 0.21 0.17 0.22 0.12 0.08 0.09 0.13 0.07 0.03 0.04 0.116
C6 0.11 0.10 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.084
C7 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.11 0.13 0.10 0.069
C8 0.05 0.09 0.07 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.15 0.14 0.17 0.087
C9 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.039
C10 0.25 0.15 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.18 0.15 0.18 0.19 0.22 0.197
Min weight Max weight

The results revealed significant convergences between the two products examined. In
both cases, criterion C10 (circular business opportunities) was ranked highest, followed by
criteria C2 (emissions reduction) and C5 (sustainable collaborations). For shoes, C10 led
with a weight of 0.171, closely followed by C2 (0.160) and C5 (0.158). For bags, however,
C10 held a more pronounced weight (0.197), while C2 (0.152) and C5 (0.116) trailed further
behind. The last three criteria in the rankings were consistent across both products: C7
(ecodesign of leather products), C4 (education for responsible consumption), and C9 (social
impact of vegan leather production). The range between the highest and lowest values
was narrower for bags (0.123) than for shoes (0.158). Notable differences emerged in the
assignment of the most and least relevant criteria by individual experts. For shoes, there
was strong convergence, with C10 selected as the most important by seven experts, while C9
was deemed least relevant by an equal number. For bags, there was greater fragmentation:
C2 and C5 were each prioritized by four experts, while C10 was selected by only two.
Similarly, C9 was ranked least impactful by four experts.
C10 (circular business opportunities) was deemed essential for reducing waste and
promoting long-term sustainability. This criterion reflects a shift toward economic models
emphasizing efficient resource use and optimal waste management. Circular approaches
highlight the reuse and recycling of materials, fostering the creation of new markets and
sustainable revenue streams while integrating these processes into production stages.
C2 (emissions reduction) was recognized as a critical goal for both the traditional and
the vegan leather industries for mitigating environmental impacts. Strategies for reducing
emissions include the adoption of renewable plants, energy-efficient systems, and green
technologies. In parallel, C5 (sustainable collaborations) underscores the importance of
partnerships within leather supply chains to promote responsible and transparent practices.
Such collaborations align with industrial symbiosis models and contribute to the broader
vision of building sustainable communities. Together, these top three criteria accounted for
nearly half of the total weighting across the full criteria set.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9971 26 of 35

C6 (end-of-life technologies) held slightly more importance for bags than for shoes,
while C1 (materials derived from plant waste or plant sources) was given more prominence
for shoes than for bags. However, the differences between the two products for these criteria
were marginal. Both aspects highlighted key environmental considerations, including eco-
friendly tanning processes, supply chain transparency, and product certification.
Criteria with lower prominence, such as C7 (eco-design of leather products) and the
social dimensions of C4 (education for responsible consumption) and C9 (social impact
of vegan leather production), received less attention. This disparity suggests that, while
economic and environmental priorities dominate sustainability dimensions, care must be
taken not to undervalue the social sphere.

5.2. Aggregation of Values—Column Vector

The second stage of the analysis involved constructing the column vector by aggre-
gating the ratings provided by the experts for the various alternatives with respect to each
criterion. In this process, no specific criterion was applied to validate the accuracy of the
aggregated values. Instead, the values were combined maintaining equal relevance for
each expert and ensuring their anonymity.
The results of the column vector analysis revealed a clear preference: the highest
values across all criteria were assigned to alternative A3 (vegan leather). Notably, these
scores were consistently high, approaching 9 for C7 (eco-design of leather products) and C8
(supply chain transparency and product certification) in the case of bags and exceeding 9
in all other cases. In particular, a score of 9.8 was recorded for C1 (use of materials derived
from plant waste or plant sources) and C2 (emission reduction). These results underscore
the strong appreciation for vegan leather’s innovation and ability to significantly reduce
negative environmental outcomes, aligning with the sustainability strategies prioritized by
the fashion industry.
However, alternative A2 (synthetic leather) received significantly lower ratings than
alternative A1 (traditional leather) across all criteria. This uniformly negative perception
may reflect the “ripple effect”, with all experts deeming synthetic leather the least sustain-
able option and, irrespective of the criterion, assigning it a lower score as if to penalize
it. The association of synthetic leather with sustainability appeared to concern the ex-
perts, indicating skepticism of its ecological credentials. Of note, the analysis could have
been more robust with the inclusion of objective, quantifiable indicators for each criterion.
While this limitation highlights the subjective nature of the evaluation, the findings still
provide valuable insights into the perspective of diverse stakeholders. From a strategic
standpoint, the results emphasize that synthetic leather, despite its positioning as a “green”
alternative, failed to meet experts’ sustainability expectations. The experts perceived it
as less sustainable than traditional leather, which, although associated with significant
environmental challenges, retained a relatively favorable perception. Traditional leather—
while problematic due to its reliance on animal-derived materials—was perceived to offer
advantages such as superior durability and quality, thereby reducing the need for frequent
replacement. Additionally, it was thought to benefit from established end-of-life manage-
ment technologies, which further enhanced its perceived sustainability relative to synthetic
leather. In contrast, synthetic leather production, which relies heavily on plasticizers and
chemical additives, was considered incompatible with ecological principles, contributing
to its negative evaluation.

5.3. Sustainability Indicator

The final step in the analysis involved calculating the sustainability indicator by
multiplying the row vector (Tables 12 and 13 for the respective products) with the column
vector (Table 14, encompassing both products) to identify the most viable alternative among
those proposed, based on the evaluations provided by the experts (Table 15). The resulting
sustainability indicator summarized the contributions associated with the various criteria,
offering a clear metric for comparison.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9971 27 of 35

Table 14. Vector column—leather bags and shoes.

Leather Bags Leather Shoes

A1 A2 A3 A1 A2 A3
C1 5.5 2.5 9.8 4.2 3.5 9.7
C2 3.5 2.6 9.8 4.0 3.4 9.4
C3 3.6 2.5 9.7 4.1 3.1 9.2
C4 3.5 2.1 9.2 4.1 2.8 9.1
C5 3.3 3.1 9.6 3.7 3.3 9.4
C6 4.5 2.7 9.3 4.3 2.7 9.2
C7 5.3 3.9 8.9 4.7 3.4 9.1
C8 4.1 2.6 8.9 3.7 2.6 9.2
C9 3.8 3.4 9.3 3.0 2.8 9.3
C10 3.9 3.1 9.2 3.1 2.9 9.2
Min value Max value

Table 15. Sustainability indicator for leather bags and shoes—baseline scenario.

Leather Bags Leather Shoes

A1 A2 A3 A1 A2 A3
C1 0.512 0.233 0.911 0.449 0.326 0.902
C2 0.560 0.416 1.568 0.608 0.544 1.504
C3 0.274 0.190 0.737 0.340 0.236 0.699
C4 0.196 0.118 0.515 0.271 0.157 0.510
C5 0.521 0.490 1.517 0.429 0.521 1.485
C6 0.446 0.248 0.856 0.361 0.248 0.846
C7 0.387 0.285 0.650 0.324 0.248 0.664
C8 0.303 0.192 0.659 0.322 0.192 0.681
C9 0.182 0.163 0.446 0.117 0.134 0.446
C10 0.667 0.530 1.573 0.611 0.496 1.573
Total 4.048 2.865 9.432 3.833 3.103 9.311
Min Value Max value

The results of the sustainability indicator aligned with expectations based on the value
assignments. Vegan leather bags and shoes achieved scores of 9.43 and 9.31, respectively,
reflecting the identification of vegan leather as the most sustainable alternative to traditional
leather. These high values were primarily driven by the contributions of the top-ranking
criteria (C10, C2 and C5). Notably, vegan leather bags slightly outperformed vegan leather
shoes, as also observed for the same products in traditional leather (4.02 vs. 3.83). However,
the reverse trend was observed for the synthetic leather category (with shoes scoring 3.10
compared to 2.86 for bags).
Vegan leather’s low environmental footprint and reliance on materials not derived
from animal sources make it a preferred choice for companies aiming to significantly reduce
their environmental impact while meeting the growing demand for eco-friendly products.
This leather alternative is derived from plant-based sources such as mushroom mycelium,
pineapple leaves, and natural waste such as fruit and cork [82]. Technological development,
incorporating processes from the biotechnology, leather, and paper industries, have further
bolstered the viability of this product type [75]. Of note, traditional leather scored higher
than synthetic leather for sustainability, possibly due to incremental improvements in
traditional leather production processes aimed at reducing environmental impacts [63,67].
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9971 28 of 35

These findings emphasize that vegan leather may represent a true sustainable alterna-
tive, combining technological innovation and environmental responsibility. Moreover, it
appears to provide a balanced compromise between durability, aesthetics, and ecological
impact, making it a compelling choice for sustainable fashion. Importantly, the present
results highlight the need for material selection in leather products to be guided by critical,
data-driven evaluation, rather than labelling or marketing claims. A transparent and in-
formed approach is necessary to guide consumers toward sustainable choices and address
greenwashing, which remains a challenge in the fashion industry.
To enhance the robustness of the results, an alternative scenario was considered
in which all criteria were assigned equal weight, bypassing the AHP methodology and
assuming no differentiation in criteria importance (Table 16).

Table 16. Sustainability indicator for leather bags and shoes—alternative scenario.

Leather Bags Leather Shoes

MCDA (Different MCDA (Different
Ranking MCDA (Equal Weights) MCDA (Equal Weights)
Weights) Weights)
1 A3 9.43 A3 9.37 A3 9.31 A3 9.28
2 A1 4.02 A1 4.10 A1 3.83 A1 3.89
3 A2 2.86 A2 2.85 A2 3.10 A2 3.05

The results confirmed the previous findings, as sustainability values showed min-
imal numerical variation. The ranking positions remained consistent, with traditional
leather outperforming synthetic leather and both alternatives lagging significantly behind
vegan leather.

6. Conclusions
The fashion industry is undergoing significant transformation, as fast fashion is driving
the sector toward unsustainable practices. However, sustainable solutions such as the use
of natural resources, recycled materials, reuse, and second-hand products are gaining
attention, alongside a critical focus on working conditions and animal welfare.
The present literature review focused on concepts such as sustainable development,
the circular economy, and decision-making, highlighting that the fashion industry is in-
creasingly pivoting toward products aimed at ecosystem protection. It also underscored the
importance of developing quantitative analyses to support decision-makers in navigating
sustainability challenges. For leather, specifically, key themes include environmental im-
pact, life cycle management, and product design, indicating the sector’s increased focus on
the environmental dimension of sustainability. Finally, a need for stakeholder engagement
emerged, leading the study to pursue two distinct research objectives.
The first research objective explored consumer habits. The findings indicated that,
while the sample viewed sustainability in daily life as highly important, awareness of
the fashion industry’s environmental impact was comparably lower. Moreover, frequent
fast fashion purchases received a neutral rating, revealing that even consumers with
environmental awareness or a sustainable mindset were not necessarily willing to forgo
such purchases (particularly among women younger than 30 years). A closer analysis of
sustainable consumption behaviors in the fashion sector identified two specific actions:
(i) using garments throughout their useful life and (ii) donating garments that are not
being used. Both actions received relatively strong ratings. However, intermediate ratings
were observed for practices such as checking garment composition and origin. Notably,
purchasing second-hand garments garnered little attention.
The questionnaire included further questions related to specific leather products. The
findings revealed that slightly more than half of the respondents purchased traditional
leather products, and this preference was particularly high among women older than 30
years. The key factors driving the purchase of both traditional and vegan leather were
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9971 29 of 35

quality, durability, and aesthetics. Notably, half of the respondents were unaware of the
differences between leather types, and this lack of knowledge was particularly pronounced
among male respondents. Economic data for the two analyzed product types (shoes and
bags) indicated that WTP for fast fashion was higher than for second-hand options, con-
firming previous findings based on consumer surveys, showing that, despite encouraging
market data, second-hand products often lack strong economic valuation. However, WTP
for sustainable materials consistently exceeded both second-hand and fast fashion options,
averaging approximately EUR 20 more than fast fashion. Lower WTP for sustainable
materials was observed among men under 30 years old for leather bags and women over
30 years old for leather shoes. Respondents perceived synthetic leather as having sustain-
ability characteristics, such that they recognized a WTP approximately EUR 30 higher for
both products in this material category, relative to other material types. Meanwhile, vegan
leather commanded an even higher WTP, approaching EUR 40 for shoes. The lack of clear
differentiation between vegan and synthetic leather thus contributed to economic distor-
tions. A focused information and awareness campaign on the sustainable performance of
synthetic leather might yield further clarity. Evidently, marketing campaigns by companies
promoting synthetic leather have been effective in shaping consumer perceptions. Finally,
interest in trying bags and shoes made from alternative materials was evident, though men
under 30 years old exhibited less enthusiasm. The cluster analysis further identified five
distinct consumer groups with specific characteristics.
The second research objective involved a consultation with academics, consultants, and
professionals within the fashion industry. These experts emphasized that circular business
opportunities are the most critical criterion for advancing sustainability in leather goods.
However, sustainability will also require sustainable partnerships and green technologies
to reduce emissions. Additionally, a transparent and accessible supply chain that utilizes
natural resources while maintaining ecosystem balance is needed. Two key findings
emerged from the analysis: (i) vegan leather is a sustainable solution, and (ii) synthetic
leather, despite its “eco-leather” branding, fails to meet sustainability goals and is a less
sustainable option than traditional leather.
The study pursued two primary objectives: on the one hand, to understand consumer
preferences regarding traditional leather and sustainable alternatives; and on the other hand,
to evaluate these alternatives from the perspectives of industry experts, alongside an in-
depth analysis based on criteria deemed relevant to each leather type. By integrating these
approaches, the research provided a comprehensive view of decision-making dynamics in
the leather industry, offering practical guidance for companies wishing to adapt to shifting
market demands and consumers striving to make more sustainable purchasing choices.
Some limitations of the study must be acknowledged. The first points to a need for life
cycle analyses across different products and leather types to gain a deeper understanding of
their environmental impacts. The second limitation pertains to the sample size; expanding
the pool of respondents could enhance the generalizability of the results. Furthermore,
additional analyses (e.g., econometric modeling) could provide deeper insights into con-
sumer behavior and preferences. The third limitation involves the selection of experts for
calculating the sustainability indicator; engaging a different panel could increase objectivity,
particularly by introducing quantifiable metrics for the assignation of values to the criteria.
The present work aimed at supporting SDG 12, which promotes sustainable con-
sumption patterns through reduced reliance on materials with high environmental impact,
such as traditional leather. The adoption of sustainable materials, combined with effective
communication of their benefits, may help to establish a production system that prioritizes
not only profitability, but also environmental and social well-being. This model would
embrace the concept of the “sustainable hand”, balancing the interests of all stakeholders
while advancing the achievement of SDG 12 through a pragmatic sustainability perspective.
Such an approach would reconcile the ideals of minimizing environmental impacts with the
complexities of real-world challenges, including market dynamics, consumer expectations,
and the economic and technological constraints faced by companies. Sustainability must
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9971 30 of 35

not be viewed as an abstract or unattainable goal, but rather a gradual and measurable
process that incorporates the needs of all stakeholders. Only through a practical and re-
alistic approach can industries combine competitiveness with a commitment to a more
responsible future, aligning their practices with the SDGs. The Italian fashion industry and
the leather goods sector, in particular, can play a pivotal role by adopting vegan options,
positioning Made in Italy as a more sustainable and globally competitive brand. This shift
would cater to emerging market segments that value not merely fashion, but also clothing
created with respect for people, animals, and nature.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, I.D., M.G., M.I. and V.M.; methodology, I.D., M.G., M.I.
and V.M.; data curation, I.D., M.G., M.I. and V.M.; writing—original draft preparation, I.D., M.G., M.I.
and V.M.; writing—review and editing, I.D., M.G., M.I. and V.M.; supervision, I.D. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This study was carried out within the PEACE (Protecting the Environment: Advances in
Circular Economy) study, which received funding from the “Fund for the National Research Program
and Projects of Significant National Interest (PRIN)” Investment M4.C2.1.1-D.D. 104.02-02-2022,
2022ZFBMA4 funded by the European Union-Next Generation EU.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The original contributions presented in the study are included in the
article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.
Acknowledgments: This manuscript reflects only the authors’ views and opinions, and the authors
can be considered solely responsible for them. We are grateful to the Sustainable Fashion Innovation
Society for sharing their ideas, experiences and know-how.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 32 of 36

Appendix A

Figure A1. Annual scientific

scientific production (circular fashion and circular premium).
premium).
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9971 31 of 35
Figure A1. Annual scientific production (circular fashion and circular premium).

Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 33 of 36

Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 33 of 36

Figure A2.
Figure Geographical
A2. Geographical distribution matching
distribution matching authors
authors (circular
(circular fashion
fashion and circular
and circular premium).
premium).

Figure A3. Annual scientific production (leather theme).

Figure
Figure A3.A3. Annualscientific
Annual scientific production
production (leather
(leathertheme).
theme).

Figure A4. Geographical distribution of matching authors (leather theme). Light blue = single country
Figure A4. Geographical distribution of matching authors (leather theme). Light blue = single
Figure A4.
publication Geographical
and lightand =distribution
redlight
multiple of matching
countries authors (leather theme). Light blue = single
publication.
country publication red = multiple countries publication.
country publication and light red = multiple countries publication.

Table A1. Expert panel.

Table A1. Expert panel.
Number
Number Role
Role Years
YearsofofExperience
Experience
Expert
Expert1 1 Academic
Academic 1616
Expert 2 Academic 14
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9971 32 of 35

Table A1. Expert panel.

Number Role Years of Experience

Expert 1 Academic 16
Expert 2 Academic 14
Expert 3 Academic 11
Expert 4 Luxury industry strategic consultant 1 7
Expert 5 Luxury industry strategic consultant 2 5
Expert 6 Fashion industry financial advisor 8
Expert 7 Sales Assistant 8
Expert 8 Buyer 12
Expert 9 Figure specializing in leather processing 10
Expert 10 Retail specialist 9

References
1. D’Adamo, I.; Di Carlo, C.; Gastaldi, M.; Rossi, E.N.; Uricchio, A.F. Economic Performance, Environmental Protection and Social
Progress: A Cluster Analysis Comparison towards Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5049. [CrossRef]
2. Chan, E.M.; Cheung, J.; Leslie, C.A.; Lau, Y.-Y.; Suen, D.W.; Tsang, C.-W. Revolutionizing the Textile and Clothing Industry:
Pioneering Sustainability and Resilience in a Post-COVID Era. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2474. [CrossRef]
3. Daraio, C.; Di Leo, S.; Simar, L. Viable eco-efficiency targets for waste collection communities. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 15038. [CrossRef]
4. Zhang, X.; Denicol, J.; Chan, P.W.; Le, Y. Designing the transition to operations in large inter-organizational projects: Strategy,
structure, process, and people. J. Oper. Manag. 2024, 70, 107–136. [CrossRef]
5. Bellamy, M.A.; Dhanorkar, S.; Subramanian, R. Administrative environmental innovations, supply network structure, and
environmental disclosure. J. Oper. Manag. 2020, 66, 895–932. [CrossRef]
6. Bendoly, E.; Bachrach, D.G.; Esper, T.L.; Blanco, C.; Iversen, J.; Yin, Y. Operations in the upper echelons: Leading sustainability
through stewardship. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2021, 41, 1737–1760. [CrossRef]
7. Mahanty, S.; Domenech, T. Working along the value chain for circular economy transitions in fashion textiles: A participatory
framework. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 465, 142627. [CrossRef]
8. Coppola, C.; Vollero, A.; Siano, A. Developing dynamic capabilities for the circular economy in the textile and clothing industry
in Italy: A natural-resource-based view. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2023, 32, 4798–4820. [CrossRef]
9. Adamkiewicz, J.; Kochańska, E.; Adamkiewicz, I.; Łukasik, R.M. Greenwashing and sustainable fashion industry. Curr. Opin.
Green Sustain. Chem. 2022, 38, 100710. [CrossRef]
10. Brydges, T. Closing the loop on take, make, waste: Investigating circular economy practices in the Swedish fashion industry. J.
Clean. Prod. 2021, 293, 126245. [CrossRef]
11. Appolloni, A.; Centi, G.; Yang, N. Promoting carbon circularity for a sustainable and resilience fashion industry. Curr. Opin. Green
Sustain. Chem. 2023, 39, 100719. [CrossRef]
12. Ordonez-Ponce, E. Exploring the Impact of the Sustainable Development Goals on Sustainability Trends. Sustainability 2023, 15,
16647. [CrossRef]
13. Tavana, M.; Khalili Nasr, A.; Santos-Arteaga, F.J.; Saberi, E.; Mina, H. An optimization model with a lagrangian relaxation
algorithm for artificial internet of things-enabled sustainable circular supply chain networks. Ann. Oper. Res. 2023, 342, 767–802.
[CrossRef]
14. babaeinesami, A.; Ghasemi, P.; Abolghasemian, M.; Chobar, A.P. A Stackelberg game for closed-loop supply chains under
uncertainty with genetic algorithm and gray wolf optimization. Supply Chain Anal. 2023, 4, 100040. [CrossRef]
15. Cascavilla, A. Does climate change concern alter individual tax preferences? Evidence from an Italian survey. J. Econ. Stud. 2023,
50, 1601–1617. [CrossRef]
16. Di Stefano, C.; Fratocchi, L.; Martínez-Mora, C.; Merino, F. Manufacturing reshoring and sustainable development goals: A home
versus host country perspective. Sustain. Dev. 2023, 32, 863–875. [CrossRef]
17. Basile, V.; Petacca, N.; Vona, R. Measuring Circularity in Life Cycle Management: A Literature Review. Glob. J. Flex. Syst. Manag.
2024, 25, 419–443. [CrossRef]
18. Dace, E.; Cascavilla, A.; Bianchi, M.; Chioatto, E.; Zecca, E.; Ladu, L.; Yilan, G. Barriers to transitioning to a circular bio-based
economy: Findings from an industrial perspective. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2024, 48, 407–418. [CrossRef]
19. Karuppiah, K.; Sankaranarayanan, B.; Ali, S.M. A systematic review of sustainable business models: Opportunities, challenges,
and future research directions. Decis. Anal. J. 2023, 8, 100272. [CrossRef]
20. Di Vaio, A.; Zaffar, A.; Chhabra, M. Intellectual capital through decarbonization for achieving Sustainable Development Goal 8: A
systematic literature review and future research directions. J. Intellect. Cap. 2024, 25, 54–86. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9971 33 of 35

21. Fernández-Miguel, A.; Riccardi, M.P.; García-Muiña, F.E.; Fernández del Hoyo, A.P.; Veglio, V.; Settembre-Blundo, D. From Global
to Glocal: Digital Transformation for Reshoring More Agile, Resilient, and Sustainable Supply Chains. Sustainability 2024, 16,
1196. [CrossRef]
22. Shaw, M.; Majumdar, A.; Govindan, K. Barriers of social sustainability: An improved interpretive structural model of Indian
textile and clothing supply chain. Sustain. Dev. 2022, 30, 1616–1633. [CrossRef]
23. Shrivastava, A.; Jain, G.; Kamble, S.S.; Belhadi, A. Sustainability through online renting clothing: Circular fashion fueled by
instagram micro-celebrities. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 278, 123772. [CrossRef]
24. Papamichael, I.; Voukkali, I.; Loizia, P.; Rodrıguez-Espinosa, T.; Pedreño, J.N.; Zorpas, A.A. Textile waste in the concept of
circularity. Sustain. Chem. Pharm. 2023, 32, 100993. [CrossRef]
25. D’Adamo, I.; Lupi, G. Sustainability and Resilience after COVID-19: A Circular Premium in the Fashion Industry. Sustainability
2021, 13, 1861. [CrossRef]
26. Bocken, N.M.P.; de Pauw, I.; Bakker, C.A.; van der Grinten, B. Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy.
J. Ind. Prod. Eng. 2016, 33, 308–320. [CrossRef]
27. Huynh, P.H. Enabling circular business models in the fashion industry: The role of digital innovation. Int. J. Product. Perform.
Manag. 2022, 71, 870–895. [CrossRef]
28. Hartley, K.; Roosendaal, J.; Kirchherr, J. Barriers to the circular economy: The case of the Dutch technical and interior textiles
industries. J. Ind. Ecol. 2022, 26, 477–490. [CrossRef]
29. Heinze, L. Fashion with heart: Sustainable fashion entrepreneurs, emotional labour and implications for a sustainable fashion
system. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 28, 1554–1563. [CrossRef]
30. Wong, D.T.W.; Ngai, E.W.T. Economic, organizational, and environmental capabilities for business sustainability competence:
Findings from case studies in the fashion business. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 126, 440–471. [CrossRef]
31. Peleg Mizrachi, M.; Tal, A. Regulation for Promoting Sustainable, Fair and Circular Fashion. Sustainability 2022, 14, 502. [CrossRef]
32. Basile, V.; Brandão, A.; Ferreira, M. Does user-generated content influence value co-creation in the context of luxury fashion
brand communities? Matching inclusivity and exclusivity. Ital. J. Mark. 2024, 2024, 419–444. [CrossRef]
33. Arribas-Ibar, M.; Nylund, P.A.; Brem, A. Circular business models in the luxury fashion industry: Toward an ecosystemic
dominant design? Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. Chem. 2022, 37, 100673. [CrossRef]
34. Stankeviciute, R.; Hoffmann, J. The impact of brand extension on the parent luxury fashion brand: The cases of Giorgio Armani,
Calvin Klein and Jimmy Choo. A retrospective commentary. J. Glob. Fash. Mark. 2020, 11, 90–97. [CrossRef]
35. Klemm, C.; Kaufman, S. The importance of circular attributes for consumer choice of fashion and textile products in Australia.
Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2024, 45, 538–550. [CrossRef]
36. Abdelmeguid, A.; Afy-Shararah, M.; Salonitis, K. Towards circular fashion: Management strategies promoting circular behaviour
along the value chain. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2024, 48, 143–156. [CrossRef]
37. Kim, N.L.; Kim, G.; Rothenberg, L. Is Honesty the Best Policy? Examining the Role of Price and Production Transparency in
Fashion Marketing. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6800. [CrossRef]
38. Moretto, A.; Macchion, L. Drivers, barriers and supply chain variables influencing the adoption of the blockchain to support
traceability along fashion supply chains. Oper. Manag. Res. 2022, 15, 1470–1489. [CrossRef]
39. Luukkonen, R.; Närvänen, E.; Becker, L. Consumer collectives in the circular economy: A systematic review and research agenda.
Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2024, 45, 281–293. [CrossRef]
40. Khare, A.; Kautish, P. Cosmopolitanism, self-identity, online communities and green apparel perception. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2021,
39, 91–108. [CrossRef]
41. Fu, H.; He, W.; Feng, K.; Guo, X.; Hou, C. Understanding consumers’ willingness to pay for circular products: A multiple
model-comparison approach. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2024, 45, 67–78. [CrossRef]
42. Papamichael, I.; Voukkali, I.; Economou, F.; Liscio, M.C.; Sospiro, P.; Naddeo, V.; Zorpas, A.A. Investigation of customer behavior
regarding circular fashion. Sustain. Chem. Pharm. 2024, 41, 101675. [CrossRef]
43. Yadav, S.; Xu, Y.; Hergeth, H. Walking the Talk: Unraveling the Influence of the Sustainability Features of Leather Alternatives on
Consumer Behavior toward Running Shoes. Sustainability 2024, 16, 830. [CrossRef]
44. Colasante, A.; D’Adamo, I. The circular economy and bioeconomy in the fashion sector: Emergence of a “sustainability bias”. J.
Clean. Prod. 2021, 329, 129774. [CrossRef]
45. Pretner, G.; Darnall, N.; Testa, F.; Iraldo, F. Are consumers willing to pay for circular products? The role of recycled and
second-hand attributes, messaging, and third-party certification. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 175, 105888. [CrossRef]
46. Quiles-Soler, C.; Martínez-Sala, A.-M.; Monserrat-Gauchi, J. Fashion industry’s environmental policy: Social media and corporate
website as vehicles for communicating corporate social responsibility. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2023, 30, 180–191.
[CrossRef]
47. Karadayi-Usta, S. A novel neutrosophical approach in stakeholder analysis for sustainable fashion supply chains. J. Fash. Mark.
Manag. An Int. J. 2023, 27, 370–394. [CrossRef]
48. Barletta, M.; D’Adamo, I.; Garza-Reyes, J.A.; Gastaldi, M. Business strategy and innovative models in the fashion industry:
Clothing leasing as a driver of sustainability. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2024, 33, 4730–4743. [CrossRef]
49. Peters, J.; Simaens, A. Integrating Sustainability into Corporate Strategy: A Case Study of the Textile and Clothing Industry.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6125. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9971 34 of 35

50. Morone, P.; D’Adamo, I.; Yilan, G. Editorial overview: The fashion industry wears the circular economy and sustainability. Curr.
Opin. Green Sustain. Chem. 2023, 42, 100815. [CrossRef]
51. Thomasset, A.; Benayoun, S. Review: Leather sustainability, an industrial ecology in process. J. Ind. Ecol. 2024. early view.
[CrossRef]
52. Hong, Y.; Al Mamun, A.; Yang, Q.; Masukujjaman, M. Predicting sustainable fashion consumption intentions and practices. Sci.
Rep. 2024, 14, 1706. [CrossRef]
53. Paul, B.; Shaji, R.; Patnaik, U.; Pulikkamath, A.; Ahmed, I.; Ghosh, S. Transition to sustainable development in the tanning
industry: Evidence from leather value chain in Tamil Nadu, India. Sustain. Dev. 2023, 31, 2938–2949. [CrossRef]
54. Väisänen, T.; Haapala, A.; Lappalainen, R.; Tomppo, L. Utilization of agricultural and forest industry waste and residues in
natural fiber-polymer composites: A review. Waste Manag. 2016, 54, 62–73. [CrossRef]
55. Ahmed, M.D.; Maraz, K.M. Benefits and problems of chrome tanning in leather processing: Approach a greener technology in
leather industry. Mater. Eng. Res. 2021, 3, 156–164. [CrossRef]
56. Rimantho, D.; Chaerani, L.; Sundari, A.S. Initial mechanical properties of orange peel waste as raw material for vegan leather
production. Case Stud. Chem. Environ. Eng. 2024, 10, 100786. [CrossRef]
57. Tewari, S.; Reshamwala, S.M.S.; Bhatt, L.; Kale, R.D. Vegan leather: A sustainable reality or a marketing gimmick? Environ. Sci.
Pollut. Res. 2024, 31, 3361–3375. [CrossRef]
58. Wang, H. Advantages of animal leather over alternatives and its medical applications. Eur. Polym. J. 2024, 214, 113153. [CrossRef]
59. Nayak, R.; George, M.; Jajpura, L.; Khandual, A.; Panwar, T. Laser and ozone applications for circularity journey in denim
manufacturing—A developing country perspective. Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. Chem. 2022, 38, 100680. [CrossRef]
60. Voukkali, I.; Papamichael, I.; Loizia, P.; Economou, F.; Stylianou, M.; Naddeo, V.; Zorpas, A.A. Fashioning the Future: Green
chemistry and engineering innovations in biofashion. Chem. Eng. J. 2024, 497, 155039. [CrossRef]
61. Hildebrandt, J.; Thrän, D.; Bezama, A. The circularity of potential bio-textile production routes: Comparing life cycle impacts of
bio-based materials used within the manufacturing of selected leather substitutes. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 287, 125470. [CrossRef]
62. Page, M.J.; Mckenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.;
Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71.
[CrossRef]
63. Chiampo, F.; Shanthakumar, S.; Ricky, R.; Pattukandan Ganapathy, G. Tannery: Environmental impacts and sustainable
technologies. Mater. Today Proc. 2023, in press. [CrossRef]
64. Khambhaty, Y. Applications of enzymes in leather processing. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2020, 18, 747–769. [CrossRef]
65. Rossi, M.; Papetti, A.; Marconi, M.; Germani, M. Life cycle assessment of a leather shoe supply chain. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 2021, 14,
686–703. [CrossRef]
66. Kumari, S.; Raju, G.S.; Singh, S.; Chandra, P.K.; Salman, Z.N.; Sethi, G. Evaluation of the Environmental Performance of Traditional
Leather Materials in Fashion Industry. E3S Web Conf. 2023, 430, 01107. [CrossRef]
67. Apsimon, R.; Turner, D.; Dewhurst, K.; Setiniyaz, S.; Seviour, R.; Wise, W. Electron beam based leather tanning. In Proceedings
of the Proceedings—Linear Accelerator Conference, LINAC, Liverpool, UK, 28 August–2 September 2022; JACoW Publishing:
Geneva, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 646–650.
68. Dotelli, G.; Negretti, T.A.; Santori, S.; Bonanomi, L.; Mauri, G. The unique high-performance biodegradable leather tanned with
natural elements. Procedia Environ. Sci. Eng. Manag. 2020, 7, 105–111.
69. Dotelli, G.; Negretti, T.A.; Santori, S.; Bonanomi, L.; Mauri, G. Sustainable leather for sustainable fashion. Procedia Environ. Sci.
Eng. Manag. 2021, 8, 639–649.
70. Liberti, R.; Alfieri, V.; Sarno, S. Di Paradigm Shift For An Environmentally Conscious Tanning Sector. Int. J. Film Media Arts 2024,
9, 7–18.
71. Mandal, S.; Venkatramani, J. A review of plant-based natural dyes in leather application with a special focus on color fastness
characteristics. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 48769–48777. [CrossRef]
72. Swaminathan, V.; Saffiudeen, M.F.; Gupta, S.; Alamri, Y.A. Review of semiconductor laser diode technologies for sustainable
energy in leather machining. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2024. [CrossRef]
73. Ariyani, N.R.; Wijayanti, S.P.; Putra, N.G.; Kusumawati, M.B.; Setiawan, A.A.R.; Isharyadi, F.; Widyastuti, N.; Djarot, I.N.;
Handayani, T. Mycelium-Based Leather Potential for Sustainability: A Review. AIP Conf. Proc. 2024, 3001, 030012.
74. Thakker, A.M.; Sun, D. Sustainable Development Goals for Textiles and Fashion. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 101989–102009.
[CrossRef]
75. Wijayarathna, E.R.K.B.; Mohammadkhani, G.; Soufiani, A.M.; Adolfsson, K.H.; Ferreira, J.A.; Hakkarainen, M.; Berglund, L.;
Heinmaa, I.; Root, A.; Zamani, A. Fungal textile alternatives from bread waste with leather-like properties. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
2022, 179, 106041. [CrossRef]
76. Resta, B.; Dotti, S.; Ciarapica, F.E.; De Sanctis, I.; Fani, V.; Bandinelli, R.; Rinaldi, R. Leveraging environmental sustainability for
competitive advantage in the Italian Clothing and Leather sector. Int. J. Fash. Des. Technol. Educ. 2018, 11, 169–186. [CrossRef]
77. Shou, M.; Domenech, T. Integrating LCA and blockchain technology to promote circular fashion—A case study of leather
handbags. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 373, 133557. [CrossRef]
78. Liu, C.; Bernardoni, J.M.; Wang, Z. Examining Generation Z Consumer Online Fashion Resale Participation and Continuance
Intention through the Lens of Consumer Perceived Value. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8213. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9971 35 of 35

79. Lombardi Netto, A.; Salomon, V.A.P.; Ortiz-Barrios, M.A.; Florek-Paszkowska, A.K.; Petrillo, A.; De Oliveira, O.J. Multiple criteria
assessment of sustainability programs in the textile industry. Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 2021, 28, 1550–1572. [CrossRef]
80. Wang, C.-N.; Viet, V.T.; Ho, T.P.; Nguyen, V.T.; Nguyen, V.T. Multi-Criteria Decision Model for the Selection of Suppliers in the
Textile Industry. Symmetry 2020, 12, 979. [CrossRef]
81. Saaty, T.L. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Serv. Sci. 2008, 1, 83–98. [CrossRef]
82. Lasindrang, M.; Suwarno, H.; Tandjung, S.D.; Kamiso, H.N. Adsorption Pollution Leather Tanning Industry Wastewater by
Chitosan Coated Coconut Shell Active Charcoal. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 2015, 3, 241–247. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.