Business Human Rights Resource Centre – Ethical Corporate Guidance

Recommendation: Start with a concrete audit of all purchases from tanneries and confirm their origins to map risk, ensuring every batch has verifiable provenance and a documented chain of custody. This action strengthens accountability for British buyers and multinational players alike.

The broader ecosystem of leather supply hinges on forest stewardship, transparent records, and published assessments. An established baseline lets you compare suppliers, and if a supplier fails to disclose origins or to publish meaningful data, that ends the collaboration at the next renewal period. The plan should present clear links between audits and exported goods.

New findings from faeda-backed studies reveal how origins of leather materials connect across borders. Some shipments from exporters in Europe show gaps, but improvements are visible where purchased volumes are redirected toward suppliers with traceable chains. The connection between compliance checks and commercial deals becomes stronger as published data helps identify risk points.

To operationalize, issue a published supplier list, require a documented connection to forest management, and escalate or terminate if a supplier cannot demonstrate origins and traceability with a verifiable exporter. Maintain a living scorecard available a címre. buyers worldwide, ensuring purchases align with established standards.

This approach helps buyers reduce risk, align purchases with forest-friendly practices, and build a resilient sourcing ecosystem where data-backed decisions are standard and independent verification confirms ongoing compliance across the full chain–from forest to exporter.

Ethical guidance for luxury brands sourcing leather linked to Amazon deforestation

Switch to origins-based procurement: ban leather from any exporter linked to deforestation in the amazons; implement a policy with explicit criteria: zero deforestation in high-risk areas, independent verification, and annual public disclosure of origins. Build a multi-stakeholder partnership including standearth, indigenous leaders, and an exporter vetting program to ensure responsible sourcing across areas such as xingu.

The risk map must be conducted by trusted bodies; where the connection between leather and deforested tracts emerges, raised flags trigger a switch to compliant origins. In practice, highlight that the most at-risk hectares are in the amazons region around xingu, with a proportion of areas showing direct link to exporters. Use standearth and imaflora assessments to prove supply chain links and to raise standards across the menu of materials.

Engage indigenous communities and local people: require consent, respect traditional land rights, and ensure benefits flow via partnership arrangements that include fair compensation and transfer of know-how. Document origins, where possible, and ensure that no leather from xingu or other high-risk areas enters the supply chain.

Implement robust traceability: demand supplier mapping from forested area to finished leather; use third-party verifications such as standearth and imaflora conducted checks; require exporter data and transparent evidence to prove the link or absence of deforestation. If proof is lacking, switch to alternative origins or certified producers and document the decision after the review.

europes-driven due diligence should become a standard: brands publish origins policy and push for credible certifications, while forming cross-border partnership with local groups to monitor hectares tied to amazons cattle operations. Highlight the connection between areas where deforestation occurred and the products exported, and ensure that origins are transparent to consumers and buyers.

Traceability mapping: identify every tier of the leather supply chain from Amazon sources to Chanel, Gucci, and Balenciaga

Recommendation: publish a traceability map that identifies every tier from the farm where hides originate to the tannery, through to the suppliers who feed luxury lines such as Chanel, Gucci, Balenciaga. The document should be last-mile verifiable, with published data and working links that buyers can inspect and cross-check.

Define the chain tiers and data fields: farm, hides, broker or repórter sources, tanneries, tannery operations, distributors, and the brands’ sourcing units. For each tier, record origin country, farm type, transport routes, production dates, batch numbers, hide type, and weight; attach certifications and notes on the language of the reporting. Use a common data model to enable cross-brand comparisons and ensure consistency across claims and datasets.

Where irregularities appear–unverified claims, gaps in documentation, or documented abuses–the map should flag them, trigger escalation, and push for remediation. Earthsights highlighted such patterns; repórter sonia and hugo note that community voices must be raised, because buyers rely on clarity and accountability, and until every link is confirmed, much devastation can persist.

Data points to collect and verify: farm name and location, origin species, hides or skin type, tannery name and country, tannery capacity, material batch, chemical usage, waste treatment, and the correspond­ing published claims. Link the last mile to the brand’s sourcing bulletins, showing each link between farm and firm. Require third-party audits, independent verification for each tier, and clear auditor names with dates; publish all results in a machine-readable format to support author cross-checking and ongoing raising of standards.

Governance and accountability: create a cross-stakeholder authoring framework where buyers, suppliers, journalists, and community members contribute observations in a language that minimizes ambiguity. Such collaboration should push brands to publish regular updates, publish corrective action plans, and publish timelines that are tracked publicly. When thorny issues arise, insist on transparent explanations and quantified targets to reduce abuses and prevent further devastation, regardless of geography.

Action plan for buyers and suppliers: require suppliers to disclose tier-level affiliations, demand verifiable COI (chain-of-information) documentation, and terminate relationships with parties lacking credible data. Push tanneries to maintain traceability records for every batch of hides and to share test results and chemical profiles. Make it standard practice to publish traceability snapshots at quarterly intervals, with clear language and accessible summaries for non-specialists.

Evidence and references: use Earthsights reports and credible repórter investigations to triangulate data, and cite them in a consistent format. When such sources highlight concerns, brands should respond with corrective actions and publicly track progress. The most credible maps couple data with community input, and say clearly what has changed and why.

Study-based criteria: what constitutes verifiable evidence of illegal deforestation in leather supply

Start with a single, concrete recommendation: require verifiable evidence that shows recent forest loss within a known farm or within named groups in Pará, in the amazon, and that this loss is temporally connected to a leather purchase.

Use a triangulated evidentiary package: high-resolution satellite data reveals canopy loss and road construction, corroborated by field checks at the farm heads and by inputs from local groups; align with official lands records to prove the link to pasture expansion.

Adopt a default rule: embargoed sources must be validated independently; never rely on a single dataset for a deforestation signal.

Bridge evidence to purchasing decisions: brands evaluating supply must reference this data in the purchase process, ensuring the data can be translated into a risk flag for known suppliers; use language that is clear for each step.

Criteria to assess veracity include: area and lands affected by loss, timing within the sourcing window, direct through-line showing deforestation supports pasture or cattle farming, provenance and chain-of-custody, alignment with existing standards and audit trails.

Credibility checks: cross-verify signals with Russell-led or independent research, and consider how nearly all data points converge.

Limitations: cloud cover, data latency, and presence of embargoed lands; if a region such as Pará or the amazon has limited data, document default assumptions and note gaps.

Implementation: procurement teams should embed these criteria into supplier screening, require Chloé and other known brands to disclose audit trails, and ensure the language used in reports translates into actionable steps for purchasing decisions.

Outcome: a rigorous, evidence-based approach supports justice for affected communities and helps respond to demand from most people who purchase responsibly, while keeping the process transparent and auditable.

Due-diligence gaps: concrete steps to strengthen supplier vetting and monitoring

Begin with on-boarding that requires pre-engagement disclosures linking each supplier to its origins, including ranches and the areas and states where animals are raised, and to the ranchers responsible.

For conceria and tannery partners, demand a detail-level dossier before contracts: list facility names, processing steps, and the chain of custody from raised animals; prove that suppliers follow local laws and avoid illegal practices; require licenses, veterinary checks, incident logs, and note any chemical usage, including chloé, in finishing processes; data should be cross-checked with independent sources.

Close data gaps by mapping the chain to the farm level; require a live view of the supply chain across tiers; use shared templates that track origins, that allow verification of which animals were used, and that capture the date and place of each transfer.

Monitoring plan: establish quarterly site visits to ranches and tannery facilities; implement continuous monitoring using available digital feeds; require suppliers to report on animal welfare indicators; set thresholds that trigger immediate re-verification.

Audit program: combine internal checks with independent audits; ensure to browse public records and trade data; verify that all steps before the last stage maintain traceability; require to prove no illegal harvesting; address devastation of ecosystems; ensure justice considerations guide remediation; theres no place for excuses.

Remediation and improvement: if gaps found, set a strict corrective action plan with defined timelines; monitor until closure; ensure that those responsible report progress; publish summaries that show improvements to customers and investors.

Remediation plan: actions brands must take to halt illegal sourcing and provide remedy

Immediate action: suspend all new purchases from entities tied to illegally sourced inputs and freeze existing orders pending verification; switch to verifiably clean links within a default timeframe; institute a massive remediation fund to compensate affected workers and frontline communities.

• Origin tracing and records: map inputs across each tier, prioritizing Pará and Xingu; require precise origin data from suppliers including forest area and mill; enforce chain-of-custody controls; verify with independent auditors; maintain a links registry and publish quarterly updates.
• Risk governance: score suppliers by risk; for most high-risk groups, pause purchases until corrective action plans are approved; set milestones and weekly owner reviews; escalate to the buyer function when targets are not met; switch to verified, certified sources when risk remains elevated.
• Remedy for communities and workers: create a dedicated fund with governance by an independent board; deliver healthcare, livelihood restoration, and education in affected areas; ensure free grievance channels and fast-track redress; publish dashboards showing disbursements and outcomes; implement measures to prevent collapse of livelihoods being dependent on illegal sourcing.
• Independent verification and transparency: engage credible monitors such as beltrágreenpeace and standearth; issue public audit reports and remediation actions; provide access to data via a dedicated portal; include inputs from laurent and other respected voices; demonstrate progress with clear metrics and showing progress rather than rhetoric.
• Policy alignment and regulatory readiness: align with states and europes standards; create a compliance calendar and adjust internal norms; share learnings with peers to strengthen global supply integrity; ensure all new orders pass origin verification before payment.
• Remediation governance and accountability: form a cross-functional task force with clear owners for each area; document tipping-point indicators and scale targets; conduct quarterly reviews; impose consequences for non-compliance including contract adjustments and supplier delistings.
• Engagement and communications: hold ongoing dialogues with frontline groups and local leaders; publish progress reports in plain language; provide free and accessible channels for feedback; avoid hiding findings and communicate both successes and remaining gaps.
• Product and sourcing strategy: accelerate a switch to low-risk materials; pilot end-to-end tracking in key fashion areas; scale proven approaches across other lines; restrict free purchasing from unknown links until origin is confirmed.
• Public accountability and performance metrics: publish a standing, multi-year impact report; include the value of claims paid, the number of workers supported, and the status of each area; provide links to origin documentation and compliance data; show progress across massive worlds and networks rather than funneling data to a single audience.
• Global collaboration and sharing: participate in cross-border initiatives with states and groups; exchange data with europes and other markets; coordinate with non-governmental organizations to strengthen protections; ensure a transparent framework that allows readiness to respond to new alerts and to switch supply chains when needed.

Disclosure and accountability:transparent reporting to consumers, stakeholders, and regulators

Publish a quarterly public disclosure detailing supplier lists, due diligence findings, remediation actions, and independent verifications; this concrete menu drives what buyers, brands, and regulators expect and fuels change across operations.

Adopt a cross-border standards framework and publish how acquisitions are integrated, including the status of british suppliers, ensuring transparency of supplies from forest and pasture areas; incorporate standearth-aligned indicators and a clear monitor process, with Chloé designated as the lead for accountability.

The disclosures must cover uncovered risks, tipping points, and connections between buyers, suppliers, and tannery facilities; include a dedicated section on preventing stolen materials, tracing forest resources, and engaging ranchers to improve pasture management; show how these measures meet both legal obligations and social expectations, with heads of audit teams overseeing remediation and justice outcomes.

Embed a measurement approach that tracks progress toward a one-third coverage of sites with verified improvements; provide a plain-language explanation of fines, corrective actions, and timelines, and ensure every entry includes the level of confidence and evidence base to support claims.