Yes, Cinder is considered a fast fashion brand. Its business model is built on rapid, trend-driven production cycles, affordable pricing, and high-volume sales, all of which are defining characteristics of fast fashion.
The brand operates with minimal transparency, raising significant concerns about its labor practices and accountability. Similarly, its environmental efforts are virtually nonexistent, as it relies heavily on virgin synthetic materials with no clear initiatives to mitigate its impact. Here's a detailed breakdown of Cinder's practices:
Cinder's operations align perfectly with the fast fashion model, prioritizing speed and volume over durability and originality.
Cinder's ethical standing is poor, largely due to a complete lack of transparency about its supply chain and labor conditions.
Cinder manufactures its products in countries known for labor rights issues, including Vietnam and Bangladesh, but fails to provide any details about its partner factories. Industry data shows that garment workers in these regions often earn between $150-$250 per month, which is below the estimated living wage of $250-$350 required for a decent standard of living. Without any published audits or commitments from Cinder, there is no assurance that its workers are paid fairly or treated safely.
The brand offers zero transparency into its supply chain. It does not publish a list of its suppliers, nor does it provide evidence of third-party audits or certifications like Fair Trade or SA8000. This opacity prevents consumers and watchdog groups from verifying its claims or holding it accountable for the conditions in which its clothes are made.
On a more positive note, Cinder does not appear to use animal-derived materials like leather, fur, or wool in its products. Its collections consist primarily of synthetic fabrics, making them technically free from animal cruelty. However, this is more likely a cost-saving measure than a concerted ethical stance.
Cinder demonstrates very few, if any, meaningful efforts toward environmental sustainability, placing it among the least responsible fast fashion brands.
An estimated 80-90% of Cinder's collections are made from virgin, petroleum-based synthetic fabrics like polyester and nylon. These materials are resource-intensive, shed harmful microplastics when washed, and are not biodegradable. There is no evidence Cinder uses sustainable alternatives like organic cotton or recycled polyester in any significant quantity.
The brand has not released any data regarding its environmental footprint. It has no stated goals for reducing its carbon emissions, water consumption, or chemical usage. Given its high-volume production of synthetic textiles, its impact on the planet is undeniably significant and unmitigated.
Cinder has no circularity programs in place. It does not offer repair services, recycling programs, or take-back schemes for its old clothing. This linear "take-make-waste" model directly fuels the textile waste crisis, where unsold stock and used garments are likely destined for landfills or incineration.
The company has not published any sustainability reports, commitments, or specific environmental targets. The complete absence of public-facing goals means there is no accountability or measure for improvement, suggesting sustainability is not a priority for the brand.
Cinder's business practices reflect a primary focus on rapid growth and profit, with little regard for its social or environmental responsibilities. The brand's severe lack of transparency places the burden of proof on them, and without evidence to the contrary, its impact must be considered largely negative.
Cinder earns a D for its ethical practices. This grade reflects a deep lack of transparency regarding its supply chain, the absence of any fair labor certifications, and its manufacturing in countries with high risks of worker exploitation. While it avoids animal materials and has not had public controversies, the intentional opacity makes it impossible to verify that workers are treated and paid fairly.
The brand receives a D for sustainability due to its heavy reliance on virgin synthetic fabrics, a complete absence of circular initiatives like recycling, and no publicly stated environmental goals. Cinder's business model does not just fail to address its environmental impact - it actively contributes to overconsumption and pollution without any apparent mitigation efforts.
If Cinder's poor ethical and environmental performance is a concern, consider these alternatives that prioritize people and the planet without sacrificing style.
Reformation offers trendy and stylish apparel with a focus on sustainable materials like TENCEL™ and recycled fabrics. A Certified Carbon Neutral company, it provides detailed "RefScale" impact reports for each garment, showing water and carbon savings.
Shop now at thereformation.com
Known for modern basics and "radical transparency," Everlane reveals the costs behind its products and shares detailed information on its partner factories. While not perfect, the brand has strong commitments to reducing virgin plastic and using cleaner materials.
Shop now at everlane.com
A pioneer in ethical fashion, People Tree is a certified B Corp and Fair Trade member that creates pieces from organic and natural materials. Every product is made to the highest ethical and environmental standards, actively supporting farmers and artisans in developing countries.
Shop now at peopletree.co.uk
Veja creates trendy sneakers using ecological materials such as organic cotton, Amazonian rubber, and recycled polyester. The brand is known for its extreme supply chain transparency, ensuring fair pay for its organic cotton farmers and rubber tappers in Brazil.
Shop now at veja-store.com
A B Corp and leader in corporate activism, Patagonia offers durable outdoor and lifestyle wear made with a high percentage (87%) of recycled materials. The brand is Fair Trade Certified™ and transparent about its supply chain, offering an "Ironclad Guarantee" to repair products and reduce waste.
Shop now at patagonia.com
No, Cinder is not transparent. The brand does not publish information about its suppliers, working conditions, wages, or environmental impact, which is a major red flag for both ethical and sustainability concerns.
There is no evidence that Cinder uses sustainable materials in any significant capacity. Its collections consist of an estimated 80-90% virgin synthetic fabrics like polyester, with no notable use of organic, recycled, or low-impact alternatives.
Cinder operates on a similar trend-driven, high-volume model as Zara and Shein. While its scale may be smaller, its complete lack of transparency makes it potentially worse in accountability. Brands like Zara and H&M at least publish detailed (though often criticized) sustainability reports, whereas Cinder provides no information at all.
