Thirty of Europe’s largest trailer manufacturers, many fierce competitors, have set aside their rivalries to issue a rare joint warning to Brussels. They say Regulation (EU) 2024/1610, which amended the EU’s heavy-duty vehicle CO2 structure, risks undermining the foundation of European industry if left unchanged.
Central to their protest is a demand for a comprehensive review of the regulation’s deadlines and simulation methods. Industry leaders say the current structure is out of step with market realities and manufacturers’ technical capabilities. Unless the rules are adapted, they warn, European producers could lose ground to global competitors, putting thousands of jobs and critical factories at risk.
The regulation extends CO2 requirements to trailers and semi-trailers, which have no propulsion system and so produce no tailpipe emissions of their own. The 2030 targets vary by product category: a 10% reduction for new semi-trailers and 7.5% for other new trailers, measured through type-approval and simulation rather than direct tailpipe testing. The sector says the semi-trailer target cannot be met under the technical parameters set by the EU.
A basic point of contention is VECTO, the standardized simulation tool used to assess heavy-duty vehicle fuel consumption and CO2 performance under defined operating conditions. It models tractor-trailer configurations, accounting for body and load specifications under different operating profiles. Its results are calculated values, not direct measurements of a trailer’s emissions. The European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) has also shown how software changes can affect regulatory calculations: a 2022 VECTO update lowered reference-vehicle emissions by 3.5 to 23.3 grams per kilometre, depending on vehicle subgroup. The JRC calculated an average fleet-reference reduction of 2.5%, or 1.33 grams per tonne-kilometre. Corrections to reported monitoring data added 0.02%, bringing the combined adjustment to 1.34 grams per tonne-kilometre.
To comply, engineers would need to make aerodynamic and structural changes to trailers. Manufacturers argue that these modifications could reduce payload capacity, forcing operators to put more vehicles on the road to move the same volume of goods. They warn that this could paradoxically increase overall fuel consumption and congestion across Europe’s transport networks.
In their joint manifesto, the companies also criticize the EU’s system of credits and debits. They say it fails to account for the time needed to roll out advanced aerodynamic technologies and low-resistance components at scale. The wider heavy-duty structure requires manufacturers to cut average CO2 emissions from new trucks and buses by 45% in 2030, compared with 2019 levels. Targets rise to 65% in 2035 and 90% in 2040. The European Commission has also proposed changing how manufacturers can earn compliance credits before 2030, allowing credits when emissions fall below an annual target. The proposal would give manufacturers more scope to build credits ahead of the 2030 key stage.
The alliance is not calling for an end to Europe’s climate goals. Instead, its members urge lawmakers to base regulations on industrial realities and proven technologies. They want an accelerated review and a temporary reduction in the target to a more realistic level. They also seek a phased withdrawal of trailer-specific obligations as zero-emission tractor units become more widespread in the market.
This unprecedented show of unity among traditional rivals highlights the challenge facing Europe’s manufacturing sector and echoes broader concerns about the pace and design of EU transport reforms. For example, the recent move to unify digital driving licences across member states, as reported in a previous report on cross-border enforcement, shows how regulatory changes can affect industry and daily life.
The outcome of the standoff will help define the balance between environmental ambition and industrial competitiveness in Europe. As the EU prepares for further negotiations, the manufacturers’ united front signals the need for a pragmatic, collaborative approach to regulation and innovation.
