Search

Is Snakeskin Ethical? A Look at Fashion’s Favourite Exotic Material

We are an online community created around a smart and easy to access information hub which is focused on providing proven global and local insights about sustainability

28 Jun, 2024

This post was originally published on Good on You

Many brands have banned fur while continuing to sell products made from the skins of snakes—but is this really any more ethically or environmentally acceptable? Here, Emma Håkansson, activist and founding director of Collective Fashion Justice, explores snakeskin production, its ethics, and impact on everyone involved in the process. 

Fashion’s use of wild animals

Snakeskin is labelled by some in the fashion industry as an “exotic skin”—which is another phrase for the skin of a wild animal. Though some organisations and brands have banned snakeskin, its use in fashion continues—mostly in accessories like handbags and wallets, with the likes of Gucci, Coach and Hermès offering products made with the reptile’s scales.

But snakes are sentient individuals who have personalities and experience both positive and negative states, suffering when mistreated and pained. And studies have even found them to form friendship cliques, dispelling their cold stereotype. So is their use as a fashion material ethical?

Let’s explore how snakes are treated before being made into bags, belts, shoes and wallets, and what this means for their wellbeing, as well as the people involved and the planet we share. We’ll also highlight some of the most ethical and sustainable materials that can help us move beyond snakeskinning while appreciating their beauty.

 

Snake welfare

It makes sense to start with how snakes are reared for use as a fashion material, and what they go through in the process. Some of this makes for tough reading, but it’s important to understand what happens behind the scenes in the snakeskin industry.

Snatched from their habitat: how wild snakes are caught

The making of many reptilian bags and shoes begins in a rainforest, where native snakes are captured from the ecosystem they belong to.

Lots of the industry’s wild snakeskins come from Asia—mostly Indonesia and Malaysia. In 2022, nearly 447,000 snakeskins were exported from Indonesia alone. Here, the industry is decentralised, which results in poor transparency and oversight. Licences are required to capture snakes for the skin trade, but a large portion of snake capture is carried out by unlicensed people who sell them through middlemen.

As a result, it’s very difficult to accurately report both the number of snakes and their method of capture. Without supervision, wildlife hunters capture snakes however they see fit, and the practices involved in snake capture are so little known that they cannot be outlined in this article—that lack of transparency poses serious risks for animals, who are viewed as commodities.

Yellow and white reticulated python

Reticulated pythons are commonly killed for their skins

Factory-farming snakes: not a solution

In an attempt to claim improved welfare sourcing, companies like Kering—which owns Gucci, Balenciaga, Saint Laurent and other luxury brands—now own snake factory farms. When Kering bought its Thai snake factory farm in 2017, it claimed the animals would be raised in “the best conditions for animals, farmers and the ecosystem” before they are killed.

But investigations into snake factory farms—including those that supply Kering—have found snakes kept in appalling conditions, treated more like objects than individuals. In one investigation, snakes destined to become handbags were found to be kept in otherwise empty plastic boxes on shelves. Other snakes were housed in cramped and dirty cages. These conditions totally oppose the welfare standards Kering claims to maintain, highlighting the industry’s ethics-washing.

The slaughter of snakes

The methods used to kill snakes before skinning are brutal and confronting. Snake slaughterhouses tied to luxury brands—including Louis Vuitton’s parent company LVMH—have been documented bashing snake heads with hammers, and even hanging snakes from hooks and pumping them full of water, sometimes skinning them while they appear conscious, writhing in pain and gasping.

This treatment of animals is unacceptable. But, even if the method of slaughter changed to somewhat reduce the suffering involved, the final outcome for snakes remains unchanged. Fashion’s love for snakeskin’s beauty requires the killing of animals specifically for accessories, but we could choose materials that still emulate those patterns and are free from such violence. And if that’s the case, why don’t we?

 

The environmental impact of snakeskin

The snakeskin supply chain’s lack of transparency leaves it vulnerable to illegal trade. In fact, according to the UNODC, between 2005 and 2013, of the top six source countries for legally traded reptile skins, five also ranked as the worst for illegally traded reptile skins across the globe.

In some major export countries, only those rendering snakes into “materials” through slaughter hold permits for harvesting, and not those hunting the snakes. As a result, tracing where snakes came from is a dubious task if they were taken from areas where they are meant to be protected, or if they were legally captured. Slaughterhouses often ship out a combination of legally and illegally killed snakes, with the volume of skins recorded as exported from many countries often exceeding the quota of snakes legally permitted to be killed.

Because of this, snake populations and the balance of their ecosystems can suffer, with sightings of larger, mature pythons in some areas becoming uncommon. Experts have shared concerns that the industry has trouble gauging population numbers for these exploited and precious species.

Even brands sourcing snakeskins through factory farms can contribute to this problem, with reports finding that some farms capture snakes from the wild before briefly confining them for slaughter, as this is more profitable.

Once snakes are killed, the environmental impact of the trade in their skins continues. As with all other skins used for fashion, snakeskins must be tanned, and this process typically makes use of a range of toxic chemicals, including chromium and formaldehyde, just as with other leather processing which often renders the skins no longer biodegradable. And if wastewater from that processing isn’t treated properly, these carcinogenic chemicals are released into the environment.

Person wearing yellow snakeskin shoes and red trousers

Snakeskin is commonly used to make shoes, bags, and other accessories

 

The human impact of the snakeskin trade

Proponents of the snakeskin trade justify its harm by claiming that poor, rural communities rely on it for their livelihoods. In reality, experts state that most people involved in the snakeskin trade in the leading production region of Asia do not solely rely on the industry for livelihood, capturing snakes “on the side.”

What’s more, these peoples’ labour is routinely exploited, as the vast majority of profits—as much as 96%—from snakeskin products is retained by European fashion brands rather than distributed to those made to hunt and kill the animals.

While brands like Louis Vuitton sell snakeskin mini bags for nearly US$10,000, snake collectors may be paid as little as US$4 per snake—as the UN reported in 2015. These capturers sell snakes to slaughterhouses that pay people in such dangerous work poorly—under US$10—before selling them to tanning exporters who further mark up the skins for sale to fashion brands that add their enormous profit margin on top.

Given the inequality of this supply chain, any claim that the industry supports the livelihood of rural communities is questionable.

 

The next-generation materials replacing snakeskin

Recently, Copenhagen, Berlin and Melbourne Fashion Week have banned all wild animal skins (as well as fur and feathers) following campaigning by fashion activists and the likes of PETA, and brands and retailers like Burberry, Vivienne Westwood, Nordstrom, Chanel, and Selfridges have also done so. And while some brands replaced this with embossing reptilian patterns onto cow skin (often called “snake-effect” in product descriptions), this approach remains harmful to people, animals and the planet.

Instead, here are some of the most interesting next-generation materials, inspired by snakes without harming them. Not all of these options are widely available and at the time of writing, many of them lack the detailed scientific work to demonstrate exactly how much less impactful they are than animal skins. But they’re all worth keeping an eye on, because in the future, we might well be wearing more of them:

  • Treekind, a home-compostable yet durable material made from discarded wood. This plastic-free material can be embossed to mimic snake scales.
  • Bio-based leather alternatives made from mangoes, grapes and other fruits wasted in the juice and wine industries can also replicate snakeskin with a reduced environmental impact. It’s important to note that these often include plastic-based treatments or coatings for durability, so aren’t easily compostable (though most leather is also not biodegradable, often including a synthetic coating).
  • Cork is a natural material that can be embossed to resemble snakeskin, and when cork bark is stripped from trees, it does not harm them.
  • Mycelium materials made from the root structure of mushrooms can also be made to look like reptile skins, while requiring very little land, water and climate impact to produce.
  • Alt.Leather is Australia’s first animal-free and plastic-free material designed to replicate leather. It is being developed in reptilian textures.
  • Certified recycled synthetic leather is a more widely available option that helps to keep fashion circular, while bringing snake textures into our wardrobes.

The post Is Snakeskin Ethical? A Look at Fashion’s Favourite Exotic Material appeared first on Good On You.

Pass over the stars to rate this post. Your opinion is always welcome.
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

You may also like…

Insurance sector digs into impact of mandatory climate reporting

Insurance sector digs into impact of mandatory climate reporting

Businesses are being encouraged to prepare for the impact of mandatory climate disclosure in Australia.

Earlier this year, the federal government passed amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth), resulting in mandatory climate reporting for larger businesses in Australia.

The issue was examined during a recent address to members of the Underwriting Agencies Council, with particular attention paid to how the new legislation will affect the insurance sector.

Speaking at the event, Prateek Vijayvergia, Xceedance Business Leader – Key Accounts, Australia and New Zealand, said that while 75% of ASX 200 companies were committed to or already performing climate reporting, the number fell to 10.5% for broader ASX companies.

“There’s a lot more awareness and commitment and urgency that we see in the Australian market now and this is not limited only to the insurance business, but for all larger Australian businesses,” he said.

“Although this is all good, there is a gap in climate-related reporting among ASX-listed entities, and the depth and the quantification.”

Joining Vijayvergia in the discussion was Sharanjit Paddam, Principal – Climate Analytics at Finity Consulting, who said that from 31 December 2025, in addition to an Annual Report, large companies will need to submit a Sustainability Report — what Paddam referred to as “the home for ESG disclosures”.

Four pillars underpin the disclosure standards — governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets. Paddam emphasised that the devil is in the detail.

“You not only have to disclose the financial impacts on your balance sheet today and your income statement today, but also in the short-, medium- and long-term future,” he said.

“They (ASIC and APRA) want hard numbers to be put in the accounts about how climate change is financially going to affect the operations of the company.”

Paddam explained: “At the heart of the disclosure is really what are the financial impacts of climate change on your company, investors, customers and shareholders; to understand that and to allocate capital and make investment decisions informed by how climate change might affect your business.”

Paddam added that companies need to consider their own impact on climate change.

“The world is changing in disclosures in a very big way over the next few years, and companies are going to have to think about not just accounting for their financial outcomes, but also their climate outcomes,” he said.

“These are mandatory standards — this is locked in, and it will be required to happen over the next few years, and it is intended that these standards will change the economy and they will drive changes throughout the way we do business.”

A particular challenge will be the reporting of Scope 3 emissions — those indirectly generated by the activities of an organisation — due to lack of data, methodology and resources.

“What’s really helping all of us is the advancement in technology so there are better ways of collecting information and data around emissions,” Vijayvergia said.

“And also, to then slice and dice that information so it can be used to make a plan around climate risk.

“It’s becoming more comprehensive and almost integral to the overall reporting that’s happening for an organisation.”

Organisations impacted by these legislative changes include those that produce accounts under the Corporations Act and meet any two of the following criteria: consolidated assets more than $25m; consolidated revenue more than $50m; or 100 or more employees.

Paddam said the new requirements would capture some of the larger underwriting agencies and brokers.

“It’s an opportunity to look at the services that you are providing and how good a partner you are for your insurance provider, or as a distributor of insurance products, to see where you could uplift your services in this respect,” he advised.

“The things we insure, the things we invest in, are all intended to change as a result of these disclosures, and getting your heads around that quicker and faster than your competition is very important.”

Image credit: iStock.com/pcess609

Accessible Data Makes Renewable Energy Projects Possible Worldwide

Accessible Data Makes Renewable Energy Projects Possible Worldwide

Accessible Data Makes Renewable Energy Projects Possible Worldwide
jschoshinski
Thu, 11/14/2024 – 18:52

High fidelity, publicly available data is essential for mobilizing clean energy investment and informing renewable energy policy and deployment decisions, but access to this data is a critical barrier for many countries aiming to develop and optimize their clean energy resources. Recognizing the importance of tools that offer accessible data to inform renewable energy planning and deployment, the USAID-National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Partnership developed the Renewable Energy (RE) Data Explorer. RE Data Explorer is a publicly available geospatial analysis tool that provides free global renewable energy resource data to inform policy, investment, and deployment decisions for solar, wind, and other energy resources. 
Two of the thematic days at COP29 are focused on energy and science, technology, innovation, and digitalization. RE Data Explorer is a great example of how digital technologies can play a role in promoting clean energy and addressing the climate crisis. The tool also delivers on the commitment USAID made at COP28 to make investments that will “support technical assistance programs and partnerships to strengthen subnational climate preparedness.”
The use of USAID-NREL public data in Tanzania, available on RE Data Explorer, offers a direct example of the impact of accessible data on the implementation of renewable energy projects. Tanzania is working to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy and decarbonize its grid, aiming for 30-35 percent emissions reduction by 2030. A major challenge to pursuing this goal is the lack of reliable, long-term renewable energy resource data for project planning.
NextGen Solar, a private sector partner of USAID Power Africa, used USAID-NREL data specific to Tanzania to support the development of its renewable energy projects in the country. The company, which specializes in building and operating utility-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) power plants in sub-Saharan Africa and small island nations, utilized USAID-NREL public data to develop the world’s largest PV-hybrid solar mini grid in rural Kigoma, Tanzania. USAID-NREL public data enabled NextGen Solar to perform technical feasibility studies to forecast electricity generation in an area previously lacking reliable, affordable power. Thanks to this reliable data and analysis, NextGen Solar was able to mobilize $6 million in investment to build the plant. This 5-megawatt (MW) plant has now been in commercial operation for over 3.5 years and supplies electricity to over 65,000 homes, the region’s largest hospital, and three schools. It has also helped the Government of Tanzania save an estimated $2.2 million annually while reducing carbon emissions and demonstrating the viability of utility-scale solar power to sub-Saharan Africa.
The application of USAID-NREL public data in Ukraine is  another example of how open data can drive the mobilization of clean energy projects. Planners and developers in Ukraine are looking to incorporate more renewable energy, particularly wind and solar, as the country rebuilds its grid and searches for new means to become less dependent on foreign resources. Like Tanzania, a barrier for Ukraine was the lack of accessible, high-quality data on its wind and solar output capabilities. USAID-NREL is helping Ukraine overcome this barrier through new high-resolution solar time series data accessible on RE Data Explorer, which will help Ukraine meet the needs of stakeholders in the energy sector across the national government, academia, and private industry.
“[USAID-NREL public data] really helps with planning and understanding where the resources are—where it is most cost effective to build distributed resources that will help to decentralize the grid.”
NREL’s Ukraine program lead, Ilya Chernyakhovskiy

To better understand the broad impact of RE Data Explorer, a 2024 NREL survey gathered insights from respondents on how they applied this data in real-world scenarios. Overall, respondents reported evaluating and planning over 111,000 MWs of solar and wind projects, with a potential investment of over $6.5 billion. End-users also reported over 1,600 MWs of solar and wind energy with over $1 billion  in investment that has been approved and financed. For context, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), 1,600 MWs would power approximately 275,200 average U.S. homes and 111,000 MWs would power approximately 19.1 million.
One particular real-world example provided by the survey came from a respondent from climate tech startup Ureca who shared that their company pursued a .3MW solar project in Mongolia that was approved and financed. Ureca’s project “focuses on small PV systems for households in Mongolia that currently use raw coal for heating.” This initiative, called Coal-to-Solar, is now helping low-income families transition from coal to renewable energy in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia—the coldest capital in the world—as part of a Just Energy Transition pilot aimed at reducing reliance on coal.
The outcomes of these projects also highlight how USAID and NREL are working together to implement USAID’s 2022-2030 Climate Strategy. In accordance with the plan’s strategic objective, “Targeted Direct Action: Accelerate and scale targeted climate actions,” projects informed by USAID-NREL public data in Tanzania, Ukraine, and Mongolia employed context-sensitive approaches to “support climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts in critical geographies, [and] mobilize increased finance.” Furthermore, USAID and NREL’s work focused on accessible data supported Intermediate Result 1.1 in the plan, which aims to “catalyze urgent mitigation (emissions reductions and sequestration) from energy, land use, and other key sources.” 
From accelerating Tanzania’s clean energy transition, to aiding Ukraine’s rebuilding efforts, to enabling clean energy projects across the world, USAID-NREL public data is helping users and local communities reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote sustainable development, and pave the way for a cleaner, more resilient future. 
For more information about RE Data Explorer, watch this video. To learn more about how high-resolution solar data is enabling energy expansion across two continents, read this NREL article.

Teaser Text
USAID-NREL’s RE Data Explorer is a great example of how digital technologies can play a role in promoting clean energy and addressing the climate crisis.

Publish Date
Thu, 11/14/2024 – 12:00

Author(s)

Emily Kolm

Hero Image
South View of Solar Plant.jpg

Blog Type
Blog Post

Strategic Objective

Mitigation

Region

Global

Topic

Emissions
Low Emission Development
Climate Policy
Climate Strategy
Climate Strategy Implementation
Digital technology
Energy
Clean or Renewable Energy
Grid Integration
Geospatial
Locally-Led Development
Mitigation
Partnership
Rural

Country

Tanzania
Ukraine

Sectors

Energy

Projects

USAID-NREL Partnership

Show Download Link
Off

0 Comments