AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Going 'green' in the correct context

2nd April 2009, Page 10
2nd April 2009
Page 10
Page 10, 2nd April 2009 — Going 'green' in the correct context
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Keywords : Truck, Vehicles

Load sharing can reduce empty running, but what about the implications concerning competition law?

By David Harris EVERYBODY WANTS cleaner trucks, But cutting emissions is not quite as straightforward as it might first appear.

In the short term, hauliers need to spend money to buy the most up-todate vehicles, and it is hardly surprising that some are hesitant to do so unless their direct competitors do the same.

A recession is hardly the time to take on unnecessary costs, particularly if your rivals are also reluctant to do so.

There are also potential clashes between different demands. Is it really possible, for example, to both run fully loaded trucks (environmentally desirable) and meet the just-in-time delivery demands of many customers (commercially essential)?

Sharing loads might be one answer, but this raises issues of potentially breaking competition regulations if rival companies work too closely together.

Such issues are one reason why one of the most pertinent things about the recent report by the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport An Inconvenient Truck? is the question mark at the end of its title. Any analysis of how trucks can best be made cleaner is likely to raise even more questions.

Consistent policies It is very easy to rush to judge truck emissions and hauliers efforts to cut them, as one of the joint authors of the report, consultant Nick Gazzard, admits. There are few more ardent advocates of cleaner vehicles than Gazzard, but he does admit government rules do not all pull in the same direction.

He says: "One of the problems is that while the government has not been backward in making policies, and while each may he sensible in its own right, they are not necessarily consistent."

Gazzard says that the potential clash between competition law and sharing loads is a classic example of this. He says: "If you start talking about the price of sharing loads and how much you should pay for a truck, you enter a whole minefield of competition law."

This didn't stop 40 of the UK's biggest supermarkets and food producers, including Asda, Marks & Spencer, Sainsbury's and Tesco, getting together last summer under the auspices of the IGD (formerly the Institute of Grocery Distribution) to share trucks as and when it made sense, but organising the cooperation between firms takes a level of legal care that smaller hauliers might find more than a little challenging.

However, Gazzard suggests there are small measures any haulier can take that are less problematic, including something as simple as making sure tyre pressures are correct.

The right context Other important issues, such as retiring old vehicles to buy newer, cleanerengined trucks, are simple in theory, but cost money. This is why both Gazzard and the C1LT document emphasise the role that the government needs to play to make haulage fleets cleaner.

Gazzard argues the government should be doing more to help smaller hauliers to buy new vehicles. The CILT report adds that the government needs to ensure not only that reducing emissions is a legal requirement, but that it applies to international freight traffic entering the UK as well as domestic hauliers. The report also suggests the government needs to have a more active role in encouraging hauliers and promoting new technology rather than just setting emissions targets. It also wants competition law relaxed so that companies can work together legitimately. In short, An Inconvenient Truck? argues British hauliers could cut emissions, but that they need to be given the right context in which to do so. •


comments powered by Disqus