Thirty European trailer manufacturers are calling on the EU to review a VECTO regulation which imposes mandatory CO₂ standards on trailers - even though they emit no CO₂ directly - warning that failure to do so could raise emissions and cost thousands of jobs.
The regulation for trailers, known as Regulation (EU) 2024/1610, mandates CO2 reductions for trailers based on simulated emissions calculated by the The Vehicle Energy Consumption Calculation (VECTO) tool.
VECTO is a mandatory computer simulation program developed by the EU which measures and regulates CO₂ emissions and fuel consumption for HGVs.
The 30 trailer manufacturers are arguing that the regulation is flawed since it mandates CO₂ reduction targets for vehicles that physically emit no greenhouse gases.
They claim the VECTO methodology does not reflect the operational realities of European road transport, the diversity of trailer applications, real payload and loading requirements, or the rapid rise of zero-emission tractor units.
They warn that to meet the targets, manufacturers could be pushed toward design changes that reduce usable loading capacity.
The result would be more trips, more empty runs, and more vehicles on the road to move the same volume of goods - and therefore more CO₂, not less, they claim
The manufacturers calculate that from 2030, an exceedance premium of €4,250 per gCO₂/tkm above target, multiplied by each registered vehicle, would expose manufacturers to annual penalties in the millions.
Around 70,000 jobs across Europe that depend on an economically viable trailer industry could be put at risk, they warned this week.
The thirty manufacturers, which includes Schmitz Cargobull, have set out five key requests in a petition to the European Commission and the European Parliament.
The manufacturers came together to sign the petition in Koningshooikt in Belgium this week.
The five requests are:
1. Bring the Article 15 review forward from 2027 to 2026. Publish the reference values immediately after monitoring and lower the fleet targets to achievable levels, for example 5% from 2030, phased in.
2. Phase in the fleet targets from 1 July 2030 to avoid market distortions and foreseeable job losses.
3. Introduce a moratorium on penalties and adjust the penalty level, which is out of all proportion to the market price of the vehicles.
4. Overhaul the VECTO tool for trailers so vehicles with comparable purpose are compared fairly and the growing share of zero-emission tractors is taken into account. Targets and levies should fall in line with the market penetration of zero-emission tractors and disappear entirely once these reach a 70% market share.
5. Recognise that the planned credit-and-debit system is largely ineffective within the current timeframe, because the necessary trailer technologies cannot reach the market at scale fast enough.
Belgium MEP Kris Van Dijck and German MEP Jens Gieseke both support the manufacturer’s demands.
Van Dijck said: “Decarbonisation must not become deindustrialisation. The answer is not to abandon climate ambition.
“It is to make sure our policies are based on reality, on technology that exists, and on outcomes that can actually be achieved.
“That is why I support a serious review of the current methodology, not because we want weaker rules, but because we want rules that reduce emissions and strengthen European industry.”
MEP Jens Gieseke, added: “European industry cannot be told to lead the green transition while we make it impossible to compete.
“The trailer sector is ready to deliver, but the targets have to be technically achievable.
“We need an evidence-based review now, in 2026 — not in 2027, when the damage may already be done.”
Gero Schulze Isfort, spokesman for the German coalition of eight trailer manufacturers, commented: “Today thirty competitors put their rivalry aside to send Brussels a single message.
“We are not asking for less climate protection. We are asking for rules that cut emissions instead of penalising manufacturers for a flawed simulation.
“The Article 15 review must be brought forward — every month of delay costs investment, jobs, and credibility.”
