Shippers hold the steering wheel in the transition to electric trucks. The problem of misaligned incentives: who pays for the transition? Transport companies do not determine the pace of electrification. Shippers do.
That may sound counterintuitive, but it reflects one of the biggest structural challenges facing the road freight sector. While carriers invest hundreds of thousands of euros in electric trucks, charging infrastructure and new operational processes, shippers largely determine whether those investments ever become financially viable. They design tenders, select transport providers, define delivery requirements and negotiate freight rates.
During a recent conference on zero-emission construction, a contractor remarked that they were paying transport rates 2.5 times higher for electric transport because electric trucks cost roughly 2.5 times as much to purchase as diesel vehicles. That immediately sparked debate. Is that a fair premium, or does it simply demonstrate a poor understanding of transport economics?
The purchase price of a truck tells only part of the story. Total transport costs depend on many variables: vehicle utilisation, payload, maintenance, charging costs, financing, government incentives, residual value and the ability to combine loads. A more expensive truck does not automatically justify freight rates that are 2.5 times higher.
The shipper determines the business case
This illustrates the fundamental problem of misaligned incentives. Transport companies make the investment, while shippers capture many of the benefits through lower emissions, improved sustainability reporting and compliance with corporate climate targets.
As long as procurement decisions continue to prioritize the lowest price per pallet or kilometer, carriers have little incentive—or financial capacity—to electrify their fleets. The transition therefore depends not only on technological progress or government policy, but on procurement behavior.
Many transport buyers simply lack the technical and financial expertise to evaluate the business case for electric freight. Sustainable procurement now requires a much deeper understanding of Total Cost of Ownership (TCO), charging strategies, vehicle productivity and financing models. Purchasing transport has become a strategic activity rather than a simple price comparison.
Electrification does not automatically improve logistics
Replacing diesel trucks with electric ones reduces tailpipe emissions, but it does not automatically make logistics more efficient.
The real challenge is shifting from vehicle efficiency to system efficiency. That means reducing empty kilometers, increasing load factors, improving delivery reliability, consolidating freight flows and making better use of existing logistics networks. An inefficient electric truck remains an inefficient truck.
What can shippers do?
Shippers have several practical ways to accelerate electrification.
First, sustainability should become an integral part of transport procurement. Tender evaluations should include CO₂ performance alongside price, for example through emissions per tonne-kilometer or minimum vehicle standards. Companies such as Unilever, Albert Heijn and IKEA have already begun incorporating environmental performance into transport purchasing decisions, but this remains far from common practice.
Second, shippers can help finance the transition. Long-term contracts provide transport companies with predictable revenues and improve their ability to secure financing. Stable transport volumes, guaranteed return loads and collaborative investment in depot charging infrastructure all strengthen the business case.
Third, operational collaboration becomes increasingly important. Electric fleets perform best with predictable schedules, stable routes and overnight depot charging. Shippers willing to smooth demand, consolidate deliveries and share planning information make electrification considerably easier for their logistics partners.
Road charging changes the economics
The introduction of the Dutch kilometer-based truck charge from 2026 changes the equation. Diesel trucks will incur higher operating costs, while cleaner vehicles will pay lower charges. Transport companies will inevitably pass part of these costs on to customers. Shippers that ignore sustainability today may soon discover that conventional transport has become the more expensive option.
An equally important element is the Dutch revenue recycling scheme. Rather than flowing into general government revenues, proceeds from the road charge are returned to the sector through lower vehicle taxes and support for zero-emission trucks and charging infrastructure. Companies investing early benefit twice: lower operating costs and access to financial support.
Understanding how shippers make decisions
Suppliers of electric transport solutions must also understand how shippers actually make purchasing decisions. Within every organization, multiple stakeholders influence transport procurement. The transport buyer focuses on cost and service reliability. The CFO evaluates investment risk and financing. Sustainability managers pursue CO₂ reduction targets and CSRD reporting. Fleet managers consider operational feasibility and charging infrastructure. Sales teams focus on customer expectations, while the CEO ultimately makes the strategic decision.
Each member of this decision-making unit has different priorities. Understanding these perspectives is essential for successfully marketing and implementing electric freight solutions.
Shared responsibility
Too often, electrification is presented as a challenge for transport companies alone. That is no longer realistic. Road charging, revenue-recycling mechanisms, and increasingly stringent sustainability reporting requirements make it clear that shippers share responsibility for decarbonizing freight transport. Those seeking genuinely sustainable logistics must invest in long-term partnerships, stable contracts and greater transparency across supply chains. The era in which the lowest price per kilometer automatically won the contract is coming to an end.
If not for the climate, then certainly for the business case.
Walther Ploos van Amstel.