Bovine leather's environmental impacts have spurred the emergence of alternatives including synthetic polymers (polyurethane and polyvinyl chloride) and biobased and partially biobased materials from sources like cactus and fungi. As many of these materials are still in early technological development, they often lack a comprehensive environmental assessment that evaluates their advantages and drawbacks when compared to bovine leather. In this study, we compared the environmental performance of eight footwear materials using a hybrid methodology that combines qualitative and quantitative assessment, i.e., Lifecycle Screening of Emerging Technologies (LiSET) framework and comparative streamlined Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). The LCA results reveal that bovine leather has the highest environmental impacts, fossil-based alternatives have the lowest impact, and biobased or partially biobased alternatives score in the middle range. However, this conclusion applies within the cradle-to-gate system boundary and does not consider potential differences in product lifespan. In addition, the scoring is driven primarily by life-cycle energy use, favoring materials with low energy requirements and high technology readiness level (TRL), such as fossil-based materials. The LiSET matrix complements these findings by highlighting trade-offs, e.g., between environmental impacts and tear resistance (one aspect of durability), or between carbon emissions and the use of plastics. Nonetheless, the results remain sensitive to the allocation assumptions, differences in the TRL, and the exclusion of downstream impacts related to use and disposal. We show how this hybrid methodology combines the simplicity of LiSET with the rigor of LCA to provide more comprehensive and nuanced conclusions on the environmental performance of products. • A combination of life cycle screening and life cycle assessment was employed. • This hybrid method employed qualitative and quantitative data. • In the LCA, bovine leather showed the worst environmental performance. • Biobased materials are disadvantaged by lower scale and technology maturity. • A significant trade-off exists between environmental impacts and durability.
Silva et al. (Mon,) studied this question.