3.8 Article

Life cycle assessment of a leather shoe supply chain

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/19397038.2021.1920643

关键词

Leather shoe supply chain; Life Cycle Assessment; footwear industry; environmental impact

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The fashion industry in the EU contributes significantly to environmental pressure. A study on the environmental impacts of leather shoe production chain found that slaughtering and tanning stages are the most unsustainable due to long distances, lorries transport, and use of unsustainable chemicals. Implementing alternative scenarios like transport means, cotton substitution, and green purchasing can reduce environmental impacts by about 30%.
The fashion industry is responsible for a significant contribution to environmental pressure in the European Union. The present study aims to quantify the environmental impacts of a leather shoe production chain and identify the most criticalities in terms of companies, processes, and materials. The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology was used to assess the impacts related to the production of a pair of classic man leather shoes. Slaughtering and tanning resulted in the less environmentally sustainable stages for almost all the analysed impact categories, except water resource depletion and ozone layer depletion. Such outcomes are mainly due to the high distance from animals' skin suppliers to slaughterhouses and tanneries, the use of lorries transport, and the large use of unsustainable chemicals to treat the leather. Going downstream, the main hot spot refers to the use of cotton during upper manufacturing and shoe assembly and finishing. Three alternative realistic production scenarios were simulated to find the best sustainable mix. They focused on alternative means of transport, the substitution of cotton, and green purchasing of upper and lining. An environmental impact reduction of about 30% can be obtained if all the suggested scenarios are implemented.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据