Cider presents itself as a fashion brand that is trying to improve its sustainability, but the public record in the provided material is mixed. Its own sustainability page is very limited, while independent commentary says the brand still looks like fast fashion because it pushes frequent new styles and encourages overconsumption. One third-party rating site gives it very low marks across materials, slow consumption, and accountability. The brand does show some supply chain details and says it has a code of conduct, but critics say key information is still missing, especially on worker pay, product end-of-life, and clear emissions cuts.
Positive Sentiment Found
The positive public signal in the provided material is limited, but there are a few points that may help Cider’s sustainability image. Independent commentary says the brand discloses some factory information, which is more than many fast fashion labels do, and that it has a code of conduct covering human rights, safety, environment, and integrity. The Commons Earth also gives Cider a visible rating page, which at least shows the brand is being assessed in public. The brand’s own site also has a sustainability page, although the visible content is sparse. Overall, the positive picture is mostly about basic disclosure rather than strong third-party praise or high scores.
Common Criticisms:
The negative sentiment is much stronger. The Commons Earth rates Cider “Bad” and gives it 1 out of 5 for materials, slow consumption, and accountability, saying the brand’s sustainability reporting is very limited and that its fast fashion model drives overconsumption. Eco-Stylist is even more direct, calling the brand not sustainable and saying it promotes weekly style drops, lacks repair or take-back programs, and gives only partial supply chain disclosure. That same source also raises concerns about recycled claims, vague water language, weak transparency on labour, and no clear plan to reduce emissions. A L’Officiel Singapore article also frames Cider’s sustainability claims as possible greenwashing, which means claims that sound greener than the evidence behind them.
