IN Brief:
- IRU and Trimble surveyed more than 1,000 operators across 36 countries for the 2026 Green Compact report.
- Seventy per cent of Western European and 71% of Eastern European respondents say customers resist paying extra for lower-emission freight.
- Vehicle purchase prices now rank ahead of charging and refuelling infrastructure as an investment barrier in both European regions.
Seven in ten European road freight operators report that customers are unwilling to pay extra for lower-emission transport, according to the International Road Transport Union (IRU) and Trimble. Their 2026 Green Compact survey finds customer-price resistance among 70% of Western European respondents and 71% in Eastern Europe, while expensive replacement vehicles have overtaken infrastructure as the most cited obstacle in both regions.
The survey, released on 22 October, draws on responses from more than 1,000 road transport operators in 36 countries and includes Australia. It measures hauliers’ assessments of their customers, not the results of a separate poll of freight buyers. The findings describe the participating operators and should not be converted into a claim that exactly seven in ten European shipments face a rejected emissions surcharge.
Asked whether decarbonisation solutions were too expensive, 64% of Western European operators and 62% in Eastern Europe agreed. The share citing vehicle purchase prices as an obstacle increased from 49% to 66% in Western Europe between the 2025 and 2026 surveys, and from 52% to 78% in Eastern Europe. IRU estimates that a heavy battery-electric truck still costs two to three times the price of a comparable diesel vehicle, before finance and charging installations are considered.
That capital premium changes the economics of each freight contract. A vehicle undertaking reliable daily rounds can spread its cost over a larger number of productive kilometres than a unit operating only intermittently. Electricity prices, charger access, maintenance, road tolls, financing and residual values also affect total cost of ownership. Routes requiring long unplanned stops can lose earning time even when the energy used per kilometre is cheaper than diesel.
Operators have nevertheless adopted measures that can reduce fuel consumption without a wholesale change of powertrain. At least one emissions-reduction action was reported by 90% of Western European respondents, 87% in Eastern Europe and 55% in Australia. Route optimisation featured in 53% of Western European and 62% of Eastern European responses; eco-driving training was reported by 42% in each European region.
Optimised routes reduce unnecessary distance and help cut empty running where freight flows allow it. Driver training can reduce abrupt acceleration, excess idling and other avoidable fuel consumption, although realised savings depend on vehicle condition and delivery requirements. Both measures can provide near-term efficiencies, yet neither removes the need for alternative powertrains when operators seek deeper reductions in tailpipe emissions. Congestion, customer delivery windows and constrained vehicle capacity can limit what scheduling changes achieve.
Measurement has not kept pace with those day-to-day improvements. Formal emissions-reduction targets have been set by 41% of Western European and 31% of Eastern European respondents, while 43% and 23%, respectively, say they calculate carbon dioxide emissions. Tracking fuel and distance data consistently helps distinguish a reduction caused by lower mileage from a change in vehicle efficiency or shipment volumes. The survey does not establish whether every efficiency programme delivers a verified emissions saving.
Alternative fuels present different capital and infrastructure demands. Approximately 41% of Western European survey participants already use some form of alternative fuel, compared with 14% in Eastern Europe. Hydrotreated vegetable oil can be used in compatible diesel equipment where supply and fuel approvals permit. Planned battery-electric investment is reported by 29% of Western European and 17% of Eastern European operators, with much stronger interest among large businesses and regional fleets than small long-haul companies. Intent to invest is not a confirmed order.
Freight purchasing arrangements determine whether any premium can be recovered. A long-term contract with predictable volume may support vehicle finance and charging investment better than a succession of short spot assignments. Customers and hauliers can also negotiate delivery schedules, energy responsibilities and the accounting method used to assess emissions. Those commercial choices cannot, however, eliminate grid connection times or make a vehicle suitable for a route that exceeds its available charging range.
Commercial incentives rank differently in the survey. Among Western European respondents, 37% said a customer price premium would drive emissions cuts to a very large extent, compared with 32% citing tax incentives, 31% subsidies and 22% legislation. In Eastern Europe, longer customer contracts also attracted support. The responses reinforce the role of contract duration and pricing alongside changes in vehicle and fuel technology.
Public truck charging also remains scarce relative to the longer-term scale of electrification. IRU counts 1,225 public truck-capable charging stations in Europe against an estimated future need for around 50,000 high-power points, while depot grid connections can take one to two years. Cost now heads the list of obstacles, but vehicles, infrastructure and customer contracts remain linked: fewer charging opportunities restrict route selection, and uncertain freight premiums weaken the case for the additional investment.
