Cider is considered a fast fashion brand because it releases trend-driven clothing quickly and at low prices, similar to Shein or Zara. While marketed as affordable and inclusive, its rapid production cycles and low-cost materials align with fast fashion practices rather than slow, sustainable fashion.
What is Cider and why is it so popular?
Founded in 2020 by a group of friends with backgrounds in tech and fashion, CIDER emerged as a direct-to-consumer womenswear brand aimed at Gen Z consumers. The Hong Kong-based company rapidly gained traction, achieving a remarkable $1 billion valuation in just over a year after launch.
Cider’s origin and business model
CIDER operates on what it calls a “smart fashion model,” using real-time consumer data to determine production volumes. According to the company’s claims, this approach results in less than 3% unsold inventory, reducing waste compared to traditional retailers. However, this model still follows fast fashion principles—quick production turnarounds and frequent new releases to capitalize on emerging trends.
Initially inspired by SHEIN’s “real-time retail” approach, CIDER developed its own version with a stronger focus on brand building and curated collections. The company leverages China’s agile supply chain infrastructure, enabling it to design, manufacture, and bring products to market within 5-7 days—a pace traditional retailers cannot match.
Target audience and social media strategy
CIDER explicitly targets fashion-conscious Gen Z women in the US and Europe, branding itself as “smarter fashion for every mood”. Their “Pick a mood” shopping feature allows consumers to browse collections based on emotional states rather than necessity—a tactic that essentially gamifies the shopping experience.
The brand’s self-description as “social-first” isn’t merely marketing jargon. CIDER has built an impressive online presence with over 4 million Instagram followers and 857,000+ TikTok followers. Through these platforms, CIDER cultivates a community called “Cidergang,” where customers share outfit photos using the #cidergang hashtag. Additionally, they operate a Discord server called “InCider” for deeper fan engagement.
How Cider compares to Shein and other fast fashion brands
Much like SHEIN, CIDER releases new collections weekly, capitalizes on microtrends, and maintains low price points—typically $20-30 per item, with dresses ranging from $15-40. Yet CIDER positions itself as offering better quality construction and more durable clothing than SHEIN, justifying its slightly higher prices.
Despite CIDER’s growth, it remains a small player in the fast fashion ecosystem. As of February 2024, CIDER’s market share hovered around 0.5-0.7%, compared to SHEIN’s dominating 38%. Nevertheless, CIDER has successfully captured some of SHEIN’s customer base—those who spent at CIDER reduced their SHEIN spending by 18%, indicating a partial shift in consumer loyalty.
Is Cider a fast fashion brand?
Looking at Cider’s business practices reveals a clear pattern that answers the question is Cider fast fashion. The evidence points overwhelmingly to yes, aligning with what industry watchdogs classify as an “ultra fast fashion brand”.
Frequent product drops and trend cycles
First and foremost, Cider’s production model mimics classic fast fashion characteristics. The brand lists small batches of items for specific moods and occasions every week, with hundreds of new products rapidly appearing on their site. In essence, Cider’s business strategy revolves around swiftly replicating popular TikTok fashion trends, launching lookalike products within mere days of trends emerging.
This approach intensifies the already problematic cycle of microtrends. As documented on platforms like TikTok, these passing fads encourage consumers to completely overhaul their style in less than a month. Consequently, this reinforces the harmful notion that clothing items are disposable rather than durable investments.
Low pricing and mass production
Cider’s pricing structure further cements its fast fashion status. With coats available for as little as $8 and dresses for around $12, these prices fall dramatically below what’s possible with sustainable production methods. Such extreme affordability comes at a hidden cost.
Although Cider claims to operate under a “smart fashion” model that produces only what customers want, this ultimately serves the same purpose as traditional fast fashion—mass-producing trendy items at rock-bottom prices. Given these facts, traditional retailers must produce a single garment to cover the cost of four, whereas Cider’s direct-from-factory model eliminates middlemen but maintains the core fast fashion approach.
Lack of circularity or take-back programs
Perhaps most tellingly, Cider shows no meaningful commitment to circularity. The brand has not implemented any initiatives for repair, circular fashion, take-back programs, donation, or recycling of its products. Instead, the responsibility for end-of-life management falls entirely on consumers, practically guaranteeing that most garments will eventually reach landfills.
In the absence of proper disposal infrastructure, these discarded items generate methane and CO2, further contributing to our climate emergency. Even Cider’s claims about biodegradable packaging raise questions—their d₂w biodegradable bags were challenged in a 2018 European Union report that found no evidence these materials decompose within a reasonable timeframe.
How sustainable is Cider really?
Cider positions itself as sustainable through its #ReCider Collection, yet a deeper examination reveals concerning environmental practices across its operations.
Use of recycled materials and their limitations
Cider promotes its #ReCider Collection featuring Global Recycled Standard (GRS) certified recycled materials. Nonetheless, this collection comprises merely a tiny fraction of their overall offerings—just 40-68 styles out of thousands available on their website. Moreover, many of these supposedly “recycled” items contain as little as 30% recycled polyester, with the remaining 70% being virgin polyester. This minimal approach to sustainable materials falls dramatically short of genuine eco-friendly practices.
Environmental impact of synthetic fabrics
The vast majority of Cider’s inventory relies on environmentally harmful synthetic fabrics like virgin polyester, nylon, spandex, and viscose[182]. These petroleum-derived materials shed microplastics during washing, which ultimately account for approximately one-third of ocean microplastics. Furthermore, textile dyeing generates nearly 20% of global water pollution, yet Cider provides only vague statements about “water reduction strategies” without specifying actual methods.
Packaging and biodegradability concerns
Since December 2022, Cider has packaged products in d₂w “biodegradable” bags. Yet these oxo-degradable plastics have been heavily criticized—in fact, a 2018 European Union report found no evidence they decompose within reasonable timeframes. The EU subsequently banned this technology because these materials often fragment into microplastics rather than truly biodegrading[182].
Greenwashing claims and transparency issues
Cider’s “smart fashion” model claims to produce less waste than traditional retailers, but offers no concrete data or transparent metrics to support this assertion. Without published sustainability reports or audits, consumers must take Cider’s environmental claims at face value. Given that reputable sources rate Cider “Very Poor” for environmental impact, scoring just 1 out of 5 for planetary concerns, these sustainability claims appear to be textbook greenwashing—marketing spin without substantive action.
Is Cider ethical in its labor practices?
Beyond environmental concerns, examining Cider’s labor practices reveals equally troubling ethical issues as the brand struggles to demonstrate genuine worker welfare commitments.
Wage policies and factory conditions
Cider claims adherence to local wage requirements through its Zero Tolerance Policy, stating “monthly wages shall not be lower than the local minimum wage”. Yet this policy ignores a critical reality: in Guangdong and Jiangsu provinces, where Cider’s manufacturing occurs, the minimum monthly wage sits at approximately $275 USD, while the Global Living Wage Coalition estimates a living wage in Shanghai at $725 USD. This substantial gap highlights how minimum wage compliance often fails to provide workers with adequate income for basic necessities.
Regarding factory conditions, Cider outlines policies mandating safe conditions, proper fire exits, and prohibitions against restricting water or bathroom access. Unfortunately, there’s little evidence showing how—or if—these policies are meaningfully enforced throughout their supply chain.
Supply chain transparency
Although Cider discloses information about three manufacturing suppliers that are SMETA and SEDEX certified, this represents merely a fraction of their likely production network. Considering the brand’s vast product range and rapid release cycles, these three factories alone couldn’t possibly produce their entire inventory. As noted by Good On You, there’s “no evidence it provides financial security to its suppliers, which can result in poor working conditions and wages”.
Cultural appropriation and design theft
Notably, Cider faces multiple accusations of design theft from independent creators. London-based designer Lydia Bolton discovered Cider mass-producing an identical apple pumpkin jacket she had created from an old tablecloth. Likewise, Wanda Cobar found her $400 handmade Versace-inspired dress (famously worn in “13 Going On 30”) being sold by Cider for merely $18. When confronted about these issues, Cider dismissed concerns, claiming they couldn’t address plagiarism allegations without formal trademarks.
Animal welfare and sourcing concerns
Finally, regarding animal welfare, Cider avoids using fur, leather, exotic animal skin, and angora. Nevertheless, the brand continues to use wool in some products without disclosing sourcing information. This lack of transparency raises serious concerns considering the wool industry’s documented animal welfare issues.
Conclusion
After examining CIDER’s business practices, sustainability efforts, and ethical standards, we can undoubtedly classify this brand as fast fashion rather than merely affordable clothing. Despite its clever marketing and social media popularity, CIDER operates within the ultra-fast fashion model—releasing hundreds of new styles weekly, replicating trends within days, and maintaining rock-bottom prices that signal problematic production methods.
While CIDER claims to use a “smart fashion” approach, this system still relies on the same harmful principles that drive the fast fashion industry. The environmental impact remains significant, with most products made from virgin synthetic materials that shed microplastics and contribute to pollution. Additionally, their limited #ReCider Collection represents a tiny fraction of their overall offerings, suggesting a superficial commitment to sustainability rather than genuine environmental responsibility.
Equally concerning are CIDER’s labor practices. Though the brand claims to adhere to minimum wage requirements, these standards fall significantly below living wages in their manufacturing regions. Their limited supply chain transparency further raises questions about worker conditions throughout their production network.
