Arnhem considers ban on fast fashion advertising in public spaces

A city that turns words into action

Arnhem has the ambition to be fully circular by 2050. The Arnhem Circularity Scan shows that 83% of the city’s CO₂ emissions come from material use, with textiles being one of the biggest contributors. Fast fashion, clothing that is worn on average only two to seven times, is at odds with that ambition.

COSH! calls for fair, healthy public space

Niki de Schryver, founder of COSH! and representative of more than 800 sustainable entrepreneurs in the Benelux and Germany, also addressed the city council:

According to De Schryver, an advertising ban is not a symbolic gesture, but a logical step in line with European legislation.

‘The new European Sustainable Product Regulation (ESPR) obliges fashion companies to focus on the longevity of clothing and to guarantee reuse. Fast fashion companies systematically fail to comply with this. An advertising ban anticipates what Europe will soon make mandatory.’

Fast fashion: not just a climate problem, but also a health risk

COSH! pointed out that ultra-fast fashion platforms such as Shein and Temu regularly violate European standards in terms of chemicals and child safety.

A level playing field for local entrepreneurs

During the debate, COSH! emphasised that local sustainable entrepreneurs form the backbone of a liveable, attractive city.

‘They pay taxes here, create local jobs and enhance the streetscape. Fast fashion chains do not do that — they only leave behind the social costs.’

The Arnhem Municipal Executive endorses this reasoning in its council letter of 25 November 2025, in which it gives a positive recommendation on the fast fashion advertising ban and proposes to ​‘use a single measurable instrument, such as the COSH! Brand Index or Good On You, to assess companies on sustainability.’

Advertising that misleads, or advertising that strengthens the future

Whereas the outdoor advertising industry mainly points to financial risks, De Schryver emphasises the social importance:

FAQ: What does an advertising ban mean in concrete terms?

1. What does ​“advertising in public spaces” cover?
This includes paid advertisements in bus shelters, on trams, buses, billboards, screens and other places that are visible to everyone. Advertising on a shop’s own premises is not included.

Advertising in public spaces refers to advertising spaces that are visible to everyone on the street and that you cannot avoid, such as:

• posters in bus shelters and bus stops

• advertisements in buses and trams

• out-of-home posters and digital screens

• large advertising columns along busy public roads

What is not included?
Advertising that companies carry out on their own premises, in their own buildings or in their shop windows. In addition, each city or municipality has its own rules for shop advertising and façade displays.

There are also public advertising spaces that are rented out by external parties, such as Clear Channel, JCDecaux, OOH digital screens, and in some cities also GCDO screens or local operators. These spaces are mainly used by wealthy companies to reach large target groups.

Marketing in public spaces has one goal: to influence behaviour. You ​“nudge” people towards an action, usually the purchase of a product or service. This makes the question of what messages we allow in our collectively shared domain a legitimate political discussion.

2. Is this about companies or products?
During the council meeting on 3 December, experts were invited to discuss two proposals:

1. a ban on advertising for fossil fuels, meat and fish

2. a ban on fast fashion advertising in public spaces

During this discussion, an important insight emerged:

• Banning meat and fish means excluding a product category.

• Banning fast fashion advertising means excluding a business model that structurally encourages overconsumption.

These are therefore two completely different forms of regulation.

In the case of food, a company that sells both less sustainable and more sustainable products could, for example, advertise a plant-based alternative. The ban is product-specific and, according to the proposal, does not exclude multinationals, even though they encourage unhealthy behaviour by promoting the consumption of ultra-processed foods.

But for fashion, that principle hardly works:
A fast fashion player would then be allowed to advertise its ​‘organic cotton dress’ or that one cradle-to-cradle certified pair of trousers (while the brand markets thousands of other products). In theory, that sounds reasonable, but in practice it creates new problems:

Why product-specific advertising criteria don’t work in fashion

• Fast fashion often produces more sustainable products in extremely low numbers per SKU. A ​“sustainable alternative” is often only made in a few pieces and may only be available online and/​or in a few shops, but not nationwide and in every point of sale. If that item is put in the spotlight through advertising, it will quickly sell out.

• Nevertheless, consumers are lured to the shop, where they are then tempted en masse to purchase items from the non-sustainable core range.
  → The marketing funnel therefore continues to function and leads to the same level of overconsumption.

That is why a product approach does not work in this sector.
In fashion, the business model – extremely high volumes, extremely low prices and extremely short wearing times – is harmful to the environment, waste chains and the local economy. The solution in the fashion sector is to buy less and use quality products for longer in order to reduce material consumption.

In the food sector, advertising can be restricted per product (e.g. red meat), but in fashion it is more complex. Fast fashion refers to a business model that focuses on overconsumption, low prices and extremely fast collections. A ban therefore targets such companies rather than individual items of clothing.

3. Does this mean that sustainable fashion is allowed to advertise?
Yes, provided that a brand is transparent about its chain and meets sustainability criteria. Tools such as the COSH! Brand Index offer an objective assessment of seven impact themes: environment, human rights, animal welfare, circularity, short chain, transparency and local anchoring. 

4. If fast fashion is no longer allowed, who will pay for the advertising space? 
You could allow wealthy companies such as banks or insurers – which also advertise – to do so according to a pay-it-forward principle. A deferred coffee system. Included in the price they pay is advertising space for a sustainable local pioneer whose turnover is less than X and who would otherwise never have access to public advertising space. These may or may not be customers of these organisations and/​or have no connection to them. For entirely different reasons, major banks have every interest in putting their money where their mouth is and truly supporting sustainable initiatives. Sharing this advertising space could become a fantastic competition and/​or PR campaign in itself. 

On the other hand, there are still many international and Dutch fashion companies that, thanks to their more sustainable approach and their commitment to the transition, and in line with ESPR legislation, would be allowed to advertise. To name a few: Zeeman, King Louie, Falke, all large companies that sell in local shops in the city. 

You could just as easily continue to allow travel organisations, but only allow them to tempt customers with sustainable alternatives. Weekend breaks in your own country? City trips by train. You need hotel rooms for that too :). 

5. Additional criteria to consider  
A logical additional requirement that municipalities could impose, and which should benefit local shopping policy, is that a brand or shop must have at least one physical point of sale in Arnhem in order to advertise in public spaces.

This protects against:

• online-only advertisers such as Shein, Temu, Boohoo or large platforms such as Zalando

• that use aggressive marketing

• that do not contribute to the local economy

• and that take away market position and turnover from local entrepreneurs

Even with a platform such as Zalando, although they offer a wide range of products, their business model encourages high return rates (and overloading of parcel services), low prices and continuous consumption, which greatly increases both waste streams and the carbon footprint of fashion.

A local sales point criterion would not exclude fast fashion actors purely on the basis of ​“sustainability claims”, but it would reduce the pressure on local retailers.
 

6. Why would a ban on advertising in public spaces make a difference?
Advertising influences behaviour. It nudges people towards quick purchases. By directing advertising towards sustainable alternatives that focus on using fewer materials, such as renting, sharing, repairing and calculating your cost per wear*, different behaviour is encouraged: buying less, buying better and buying locally.

Please note that misleading advertising is not allowed. Companies should not be allowed to calculate the average price per 30 wears, for example, precisely because we know that aggressive marketing means that number of wears is considerably lower. 

7. Won’t advertising budgets simply shift to online?
One of the arguments against a ban on fast fashion and meat and fish advertising in public spaces is that schoolchildren learn values and sustainability lessons at school and/​or at home. But as soon as they walk down the street, they are inundated with advertising in bus shelters and trams that contradicts what they have learned at school. 

Wouldn’t a ban simply shift those companies’ advertising budgets online? 

Possibly. But we are in the midst of a general transition towards smartphone use among young people. 

More and more countries are introducing smartphone bans in schools to protect pupils’ concentration, learning performance and well-being. In 2025, Flanders imposed a far-reaching ban on primary and secondary schools, the Netherlands has similar rules in many schools, and internationally, countries such as France, Italy, China, Singapore (from 2026) and Chile are following suit. These measures mainly apply during school hours, sometimes the entire school day, and are based on the principle that smartphones should only be used when they demonstrably contribute to learning. Research shows that these bans mainly make the school environment safer and quieter, although they do not significantly reduce the overall smartphone use of young people.

An actual age-related ban on social media exists only in a few developing countries or as a legislative proposal: Australia, for example, is considering a ban for young people under the age of 16, and France is considering restrictions for those under the age of 15. In Belgium and the Netherlands, there is no legal ban on social media, but experts regularly advocate for a limit of 16 years of age due to mental health risks, online pressure and addiction. Globally, the regulatory framework remains largely limited to platform rules that apply a minimum age of 13 (such as TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat), but these are still easy to circumvent for the time being. As a result, there is a growing international debate about stricter enforcement, age verification and legal intervention to better protect young people.

In short, things are changing here too. But this can’t be a reason to hold back on measures to ban advertising in public spaces. 

8. Why would the COSH! Index be a good method? 
COSH! is already working with the municipalities of Arnhem and Amsterdam. Lots of Dutch companies, including local pioneers, have already been given a COSH! Brand index. 

However, the proposal to ban fast fashion advertising in public spaces came from Murielle Simonis of GroenLinks, with the support of the Party for the Animals and Volt. COSH! was only involved shortly before the presentation to the Municipal Council and naturally supports the proposal, but was not the driving force behind it.

9. Can a city regulate this locally?
 Yes. Municipalities have the right to set rules on what is displayed in public spaces through the General Local Regulation (APV). Arnhem has thus chosen to make a national ambition, circular and climate neutral, visible at the local level as well. As a municipality and a fashion city, it has the opportunity to make an international statement and set an example. 

A signal to Europe

‘With this measure, Arnhem is showing what local leadership means,’ concludes De Schryver. 
​‘A city cannot wait for Europe to regulate everything; it can choose fair communication in public spaces now. That is not a restriction, it is protection: of citizens, of entrepreneurs and of our future.’

About COSH!

COSH! is a digital platform that connects consumers, cities and entrepreneurs in the transition to a transparent and circular fashion sector.

The COSH! Brand Index assesses brands on seven impact themes, from the environment to labour rights.

The COSH! Digital Wardrobe helps consumers make their wardrobe more sustainable through insight into cost per wear and conscious outfit planning.

COSH! is active in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany and works with cities such as Ghent, Mechelen, Amsterdam and Arnhem to strengthen sustainable shopping cities.