中文title: “Cotance in Brussels: The European Tanning Lobby’s Quiet Power Play” date: 2026-06-28 source: https://internationalleathermaker.com/cotance-outlines-clear-prioritises-in-brussels/ image_url: https://images.pexels.com/photos/434673/pexels-photo-434673.jpeg meta_description: “Cotance sets out its Brussels agenda, focusing on EUDR, REACH, and CSDDD — and why European tanneries cannot afford to lose the policy fight.” keywords: Cotance, Brussels lobbying, EUDR leather, REACH tanning, CSDDD, European tanneries, leather regulation slug: cotance-brussels-agenda-european-tanning
Cotance in Brussels: The European Tanning Lobby’s Quiet Power Play
European tanneries do not often make the front pages of policy debates in Brussels, but they are paying close attention to the ones that happen behind the closed doors of the European Commission. At its latest high-level meetings, Cotance — the Confederation of National Associations of Tanners and Dressers of the European Community — laid out a set of priorities that will shape the regulatory environment for European leather for the rest of the decade.
This is not glamorous work. It is, however, the difference between a European tanning sector that survives intact and one that wakes up one morning to discover it has been legislated out of existence.
The priorities, in plain terms
Three policy files dominate Cotance’s agenda. The first is the European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), which has already disrupted hide supply chains and forced tanneries to invest in traceability systems they had not previously needed. The second is the ongoing revision of REACH, Europe’s chemicals regulation, where several substances long used in tanning and finishing are under fresh scrutiny. The third is the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), which obliges larger companies to identify, prevent, and mitigate adverse human-rights and environmental impacts across their value chains.
Each of these files is a small catastrophe in its own right. Together, they are forcing European tanneries to operate in a regulatory environment that is more demanding than anything their competitors face in Asia, Africa, or the Americas.
The strategic argument
Cotance’s approach is, in essence, a bet that compliance is a competitive advantage. The argument runs as follows: yes, European tanneries face higher regulatory costs. But those costs also force them to develop traceability, chemical management, and sustainability reporting capabilities that the rest of the world is years behind on. In a market where brands are increasingly held accountable for what they buy, that infrastructure is worth real money.
It is a credible argument. The question is whether the European tanneries that survive the next five years will be the ones that make that case effectively to their brand customers, or whether the industry will be hollowed out by compliance costs before the value of compliance ever shows up in the order book.
What Cotance is asking for
Three things. First, regulatory coherence — a clear, predictable framework across EUDR, REACH, and CSDDD that does not force tanneries to build three separate traceability systems. Second, recognition that leather is part of the circular bioeconomy, not a relic of the linear one — meaning that hides, a by-product of the meat industry, should be treated as a resource, not a waste. Third, a level playing field — meaning that imported leather should be held to the same environmental and social standards as European production.
The third point is the one that matters most commercially. Without it, European tanneries will be undercut by imports from jurisdictions that do not bear the same compliance burden. With it, the European industry has a real chance to convert its regulatory pain into market share.
The risk of polite irrelevance
The danger for Cotance is not that its arguments are wrong. They are largely correct. The danger is that Brussels will continue to treat leather as a small, traditional, and politically expendable industry. Several recent Commission documents on sustainable textiles have made only passing mention of leather, and some have actively framed it as a problem to be replaced.
Cotance is pushing back on that framing, hard. Its presence in the room is a reminder that European leather is still a multi-billion-euro industry that employs tens of thousands of people across the continent, many in regions with limited alternative employment. That is not a sector that disappears quietly.
The takeaway for the industry
For European tanneries, the message from Brussels is clear. The regulatory environment is going to get harder before it gets easier. The industry has a credible lobby making the right arguments. Whether those arguments translate into a workable policy environment will depend on how loudly, and how consistently, tanneries speak up in the months ahead.
The tanneries that treat Brussels as a distraction will be the ones most exposed when the next regulatory wave hits. The ones that engage — through Cotance, through their national associations, and directly with their brand customers — will at least have a say in how that wave lands.
Source: International Leather Maker, Cotance outlines clear priorities in Brussels.
