The Upcycling Paradox, Dissecting Rhetorical Decoupling in the Global Leather Industry’s Sustainability Communication

Authors

  • Melliana LSPR Institute of Communication and Business, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54518/rh.6.4.2026.1437

Keywords:

Barthesian Semiotics, Legitimacy Theory, Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis, Paradox Theory, Rhetorical Upcycling, Sustainability Communications

Abstract

The leather sector faces persistent tensions over its sustainability claims. Critics associate it with livestock agriculture and chemical pollution, whereas the industry frames leather as a circular solution by upcycling agrifood byproducts into luxury materials. Viewed through the combined lenses of Paradox and Legitimacy theories, this study investigates how global leather stakeholders discursively navigate this structural tension. Adopting a qualitative, multiple-case study design of four distinct global entities, the research combines Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis (MCDA) and Barthesian semiotics to analyze corporate disclosures. The empirical material is supplemented by a semi-structured interview with a senior industry brand strategist to uncover the strategic intent behind these narratives. This study critically evaluates how industry stakeholders interpret and communicate structural paradoxes. Specifically, it discloses how they deploy “rhetorical upcycling” to magnify upstream waste valorization while obscuring downstream ecotoxicological processing footprints. The findings reveal that while these rhetorical strategies successfully manipulate external perception of value, they create an unsustainable decoupling of corporate image from operational realities. Consequently, this study demonstrates that corporate sustainability must transition from mere rhetorical compliance and symbolic legitimacy towards an integrated, holistic paradigm where organizations transparently articulate how they navigate inherent socio-ecological dualities within their formal disclosures.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Akhter, F., Hossain, M. R., Elrehail, H., Rehman, S. U., & Almansour, B. (2023). Environmental disclosures and corporate attributes, from the lens of legitimacy theory: a longitudinal analysis on a developing country. European Journal of Management and Business Economics, 32(3), 342-369. https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EJMBE-01-2021-0008.

Akkan, S. (2024). Evaluating the sustainability of vegan leather as an eco-friendly and ethical alternative to animal-derived leather. Bavaria: Technical University of Munich (Doctoral dissertation).

Alsaad, Y. M., Ali, F. A., Jasim, B. E. A., Jawad, A. M., & Waleed, G. (2025). The evolution of environmental marketing strategies in the age of climate awareness. Environment and Social Psychology, 10(12), 104-126. https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v10i12.3980.

Arinnis, N. M., Cahyaningratri, C., & Priyotomo, P. (2022). The effectiveness of csr implementation in the upstream supply chain of mining industry: a stakeholders' perspective. Research Horizon, 2(6), 568-586. https://doi.org/10.54518/rh.2.6.2022.83.

Brun, A., & Ciccullo, F. (2022). Factors affecting sustainability‐oriented innovation in the leather supply chain. Strategic Change, 31(3), 305-321. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2500.

Carmine, S., & De Marchi, V. (2023). Reviewing paradox theory in corporate sustainability toward a systems perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 184(1), 139-158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05112-2.

Chen, X., Xu, L., Ren, Z., Jia, F., & Yu, Y. (2023). Sustainable supply chain management in the leather industry: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 26(12), 1663-1703. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2022.2104233.

Colucci, M., & Vecchi, A. (2024). Tackling climate change with end‐of‐life circular fashion practices. Remade in Italy with amore. British Journal of Management, 35(3), 1157-1179. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12806.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. London: Sage Publications.

Cunha, M. P. E., & Putnam, L. L. (2019). Paradox theory and the paradox of success. Strategic Organization, 17(1), 95-106. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1476127017739536.

Dincer, B., & Dincer, C. (2022). Sustainable communication; perceived motivation and nature of the commitment. Sustainability, 14(5), 97-113. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14159783.

Fatema, K., Sarker, M. R., Akhtar, K., Begum, A., & Islam, S. (2023). Environmental sustainability: A challenge for leather industry. Leather & Footwear Journal/Revista de Pielarie Incaltaminte, 23(3), 146-158. https://dx.doi.org/10.24264/lfj.23.3.6.

Gruppo Mastrotto. (2026). Traceability and animal welfare policy: A sustainable strategy for the leather supply chain. Retrieved on January 24, 2026, from https://www.mastrotto.com/en/sustainability-journey/traceability.

Henan Prosper & Colomer Moda Co., Ltd. (2025). Sustainability program. Retrieved on January 26, 2026, from https://www.prosper.com.cn/loop.

Joy, P., Hammond, B., Hammond, C., Bonardi, O., Wassef, K., & Ferlatte, O. (2024). Pulling at all threads: Reflections on using multimodal critical discourse analysis within arts based health research. Qualitative Health Research, 6(3), 104-118. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323241307893.

Khan, N. U., & Khan, M. H. (2025). “Soft” climate change exposure and firm performance across countries: legitimacy theory perspective. Business Strategy and the Environment, 34(7), 8554-8570. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.70029.

Kurniawati, E., Budiyanto, Raharjo, I, B. (2025). Sustainability reporting: Framing theory and rhetoric theory perspective. International Journal of Accounting, 6(4), 102-118. https://doi.org/10.14419/nmyz3j97.

Lee, Y. C. (2024). Framing effects on sustainable behavior. Sustainable Development, 32(5), 5705-5718. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2988.

Liu, J., Fan, B., Lai, J., Kassas, B., Ropicki, A. (2025). Shaping consumer perceptions of sustainable practices in livestock production through effective communication design. Agribusiness, 5(3), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.70010.

Meyer, M., Dietrich, S., Schulz, H., & Mondschein, A. (2021). Comparison of the technical performance of leather, artificial leather, and trendy alternatives. Coatings, 11(2), 226-238. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings11020226.

O’Halloran, K. L., & Tan, S. (2022). Discourse analysis and semiotics. Semiotic movements:(Bloomsbury Semiotics 4). Paris: Bloomsbury Publishing. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350139435.ch-11.

Omoloso, O., Wise, W., Mortimer, K., Jraisat, L., & Omoloso, S. (2020). Corporate sustainability disclosure: a leather industry perspective. Emerging Science Journal, 4(1), 1-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.28991/esj-2020-01209.

Paliwoda-Matiolańska, A., & Nakayama, A. (2024). Sustainability strategic framing in corporate communication: Contextual semantics of Twitter in the energy sector. El Profesional de la Información, 33(3), 104-120. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2024.0304.

Pasubio Group. (2024). Pasubio sustainability report 2024. Retrieved on January 27, 2026, from https://www.pasubio.com/wp content/uploads/2025/07/PASUBIO_Sustainability_Report_2024_Final.pdf.

Ramchandani, M., & Coste-Maniere, I. (2020). Leather in the age of sustainability: A norm or merely a cherry on top?. In Leather and Footwear Sustainability: Manufacturing, Supply Chain, and Product Level Issues (pp. 11-22). Singapore: Springer Singapore.

Suryantara, I. G. D., Santika, I. D. A. D. M., & Pratiwi, D. P. E. (2022). A semiotic analysis in Victoria Secret product advertisements. Elysian Journal: English Literature, Linguistics and Translation Studies, 2(4), 80-89. https://doi.org/10.36733/elysian.v2i4.4408.

UNIC – Italian Tanneries. (2022). Sustainability report of the Italian tanning industry. UNIC Bilancio di Sostenibilità. Retrieved on January 24, 2026, from https://sustainability.unic.it/en/archive/.

Van Der Wel, K., Van De Mortel, M., Van De Grift, L., & Akerboom, S. (2025). How to make stakeholder participation work? Constructing legitimacy in environmental policymaking. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 27(2), 166-181. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2024.2443392.

Wang, Y. N., Zhang, Y., & Wang, Z. (2024). Biodegradability of leather: a crucial indicator to evaluate sustainability of leather. Collagen and Leather, 6(1), 12-24. https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s42825-024-00151-z.

Wasieleski, D., Waddock, S., & Shrivastava, P. (2020). Management and the sustainability paradox: Reconnecting the human chain. London: Routledge.

Wrzesińska-Jędrusiak, E., Czarnecki, M., Kazimierski, P., Bandrów, P., & Szufa, S. (2023). The circular economy in the management of waste from leather processing. Energies, 16(1), 564-576. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en16010564.

Downloads

Published

2026-08-25

How to Cite

Melliana, M. (2026). The Upcycling Paradox, Dissecting Rhetorical Decoupling in the Global Leather Industry’s Sustainability Communication. Research Horizon, 6(4), 1663–1676. https://doi.org/10.54518/rh.6.4.2026.1437

Similar Articles

<< < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.