Based on an article by Global Venturing
“Can the second wave of vegan fibres crack the fashion market?”
Why early leather alternatives struggled to scale
Over the past decade, the fashion and materials industries have witnessed a surge of innovation aimed at reducing reliance on animal leather. Early entrants introduced alternatives derived from sources such as pineapple leaves, apple waste, and mycelium, often framed as the future of sustainable materials. These developments generated significant attention, attracted capital, and secured pilot collaborations with brands eager to experiment. Yet, despite the initial momentum, many of these solutions failed to move beyond limited production runs.
The underlying challenge was not a lack of interest from the market, but a mismatch between expectation and execution. While sustainability narratives resonated strongly, particularly among consumers concerned with animal welfare, the materials themselves frequently fell short in areas that matter most to brands: durability, consistency, scalability, and cost. As a result, adoption remained largely confined to niche or high-end applications, where limited volumes and higher price points could be absorbed more easily.
This dynamic has contributed to a growing sense of caution among investors and industry stakeholders. As highlighted in Global Venturing, several well-funded companies either pivoted or ceased operations altogether, reinforcing the perception that material innovation, while promising, remains a complex and capital-intensive endeavor. The lesson from this first wave is clear: innovation alone is not sufficient. Without the ability to meet industrial and commercial requirements, even the most compelling concepts struggle to translate into lasting impact.
The emergence of a second wave: A shift toward viability
What is now taking shape can be understood as a second wave of material innovation, one defined not by experimentation alone, but by a more rigorous alignment with real-world constraints. This new phase reflects a maturation of the category, where fewer players remain, but those that do are increasingly focused on delivering solutions that can operate within existing supply chains and production systems.
A key distinction lies in how these materials are positioned. Rather than relying primarily on sustainability claims, companies are addressing broader business needs. As Mike Smeed, Managing Director of InMotion Ventures, noted in Global Venturing, “sustainability for sustainability’s sake is not enough… it has to be commercially viable and comparable in price”. This perspective captures a broader industry shift: sustainability is no longer a differentiator in isolation, but one of several essential criteria.
At the same time, the scope of application is expanding. While fashion remains an important entry point, it is also a volatile and trend-driven market. As a result, many material innovators are increasingly targeting sectors such as automotive and interiors, where demand is more stable and volumes are significantly higher. This diversification reflects a strategic recognition that long-term success depends on integrating materials into multiple industries, rather than relying on a single vertical.The second wave is therefore less about redefining materials conceptually, and more about proving their viability at scale. It is shaped by the understanding that adoption is not driven by aspiration alone, but by the ability to meet the operational realities of global manufacturing.
The four requirements brands expect from new materials
As the category evolves, a clearer framework has emerged around what brands expect from new materials. Across industries, decision-making is increasingly guided by a set of core criteria that extend well beyond environmental considerations.
Stephanie Downs, our CEO and co-founder, has described this as the need to satisfy four essential conditions: quality, scale, price, and sustainability. Each of these elements plays a critical role, and none can be treated as optional. A material that performs well but cannot be produced consistently at scale presents operational risks. One that meets sustainability goals but comes at a significantly higher cost is unlikely to gain traction in competitive markets. Similarly, inconsistencies in texture, durability, or performance can disrupt production and compromise product quality.
This multidimensional requirement helps explain why many earlier solutions encountered barriers to adoption. In several cases, the focus on environmental impact overshadowed other equally important factors. As Smeed observed, “brands are not going to buy something just because it’s a good idea”. The implication is not that sustainability is unimportant, but that it must be integrated into a broader value proposition.Consumer perception further reinforces this complexity. While ethical considerations, such as reducing reliance on animal-derived materials, often drive initial interest in alternatives, performance remains a decisive factor. Attributes like durability, consistency, and sensory experience continue to shape how materials are evaluated, particularly in industries where longevity and reliability are essential. As a result, broader adoption depends not only on aligning with these values, but on meeting the expectations that have long defined material performance.
How high-performance biomaterials are closing the gap
Within this evolving landscape, a smaller group of companies is beginning to demonstrate how material innovation can move beyond concept and into application. These examples are defined by their ability to address the full spectrum of industry requirements, rather than focusing on a single dimension.
At Uncaged, our approach has been rooted in this understanding from the outset. By working with plant-based proteins derived from grains, we have developed a material designed to replicate the structural characteristics that give leather its strength and durability. This foundation allows us to focus not only on composition, but on how the material performs under real-world conditions.
One of the most revealing indicators of progress lies in perception. As our CEO and co-founder shared in Global Venturing, when presenting samples to potential investors, participants were often unable to distinguish between our material and traditional leather, frequently identifying ours as the latter. While anecdotal, this speaks to the importance of sensory and functional equivalence in driving acceptance.
Equally important is the ability to scale. Moving from small samples to production in rolls of significant length represents a critical transition, enabling integration into existing manufacturing processes. This progression has been supported by collaborations across industries, including automotive, where performance requirements are particularly demanding.
Price competitiveness also plays a decisive role. As Downs noted, achieving cost parity with quality leather is essential for broader adoption . When combined with measurable environmental benefits, such as reduced emissions, water use, and energy consumption, this creates a more balanced value proposition that aligns with both business and sustainability objectives.Rather than treating these factors independently, the emphasis is on their convergence. It is this alignment that distinguishes materials capable of moving beyond pilot projects and into sustained commercial use.
Why materials alone won’t transform the industry
While advances in material innovation are significant, they exist within a broader system that ultimately shapes their impact. As industry experts have noted, improvements at the material level do not automatically translate into systemic change. Issues such as overproduction, resource consumption, and waste remain deeply embedded in the fashion and manufacturing ecosystems.
Kate Hobson-Lloyd, sustainability manager at Good On You, highlighted this complexity in Global Venturing, noting that “materials alone cannot be the ultimate solution”. A more comprehensive approach is required, one that considers how materials are produced, used, and integrated into circular models.
At the same time, increasing regulatory scrutiny, particularly in regions such as the European Union, is driving demand for more robust data and transparency. Lifecycle assessments are becoming a critical tool, yet they also introduce challenges related to methodology and comparability. As Downs acknowledged, variations in how system boundaries are defined can lead to significantly different outcomes, underscoring the need for clarity and consistency.The path forward will therefore depend not only on the development of better materials, but on their integration into more resilient and responsible systems. This includes collaboration across industries, alignment with regulatory frameworks, and a continued focus on measurable impact.
Looking ahead: Proving what comes next
The transition from the first to the second wave of material innovation reflects a broader shift in how the industry approaches change. Early experimentation has given way to a more disciplined focus on execution, where success is measured not by potential, but by performance in real-world conditions.
This does not eliminate uncertainty. As history has shown, technological promise does not always translate into commercial success. However, the current landscape suggests a more grounded understanding of what is required. The companies that remain are those that have adapted to these realities, refining their approaches and aligning more closely with market needs.
As Stephanie Downs has observed, pioneers rarely define the final outcome of an industry. They create the conditions for others to build upon. The question now is whether this next group can demonstrate not only that new materials are possible, but that they are viable, scalable, and capable of sustaining long-term adoption.
The answer will not be determined by claims alone, but by the ability to meet the standards that the market demands, consistently, at scale, and without compromise.