Investigations by Dagens Nyheter reveal that Volvo has intensively lobbied the EU and the Swedish government to weaken CO₂ reduction targets for trucks, which will drive up harmful emissions and risk billions of euros in fines for Swedish taxpayers. Across the Atlantic, Volvo has gone even further, entering legal battles, which attack the U.S.’s ability to tackle climate change and California’s right to enforce rules on clean trucks.

Clean freight experts say big legacy truck makers are seeking to mask a chronic under-investment in zero-emission vehicles. According to new research from the green think tank Transport & Environment (T&E), legacy manufacturers are aggressively prioritizing short-term shareholder payouts over long-term innovation. Last year alone, Volvo Group reduced its funding for low- and zero-emission projects, paying out roughly three times more to shareholders than it invested in zero-emission technologies- a strategy that ignores investor warnings and locks fleets into spiking fossil fuel costs.

The lobbying backlash 

Last year, Volvo Group lobbied the EU Commission for less compliance towards the 2030 targets that member states recently signed off on allowing manufacturers to accumulate significantly more emissions credits between 2025 and 2029, effectively lowering the bar.

Instead of admitting to a slowdown, Volvo explicitly argues that its lobbying against EU rules relaxed rules are not its fault, Volvo argued against evidence that weaker targets would weaken industrial competitiveness in Europe, despite evidence seen by Dagens Nyhtter from the ICCT, showing that its lobbying is predicted to slash 200,000 zero-emissions truck sales off European roads by 2030. 

“Such a sharp reduction in ambitions is worrying because it comes at a time when diesel prices are skyrocketing across the continent,” writes Eamon Mullholland, a researcher at ICCT, in an email to DN.

In the U.S., Volvo entered legal battles on the side of the Trump administration, which attacked the U.S.’s ability to tackle climate change and California’s ability to enforce rules on clean trucks. Volvo denies it had conferred with the Trump administration ahead of its filing of the case against California, despite the federal Department of Justice entering the case just days later on the side of Volvo and other truck manufacturers. 

“The truck manufacturers were happy to accept billions of dollars in support and were happy with the deal when they thought Biden would win the election. Then they switched sides in a flash. It’s amazing,” says Craig Segall, a former senior executive at the California Air Quality Authority (CARB), which has now been sued by both Volvo and Donald Trump.

Playing blind to the competitive threat

By lobbying to lower the climate bar at home and across the Atlantic, Volvo isn’t protecting its future, it is merely buying time while international competitors sprint ahead. For an industrial backbone employing millions, this shortsightedness is an existential risk.

Stef Cornelis believes that Volvo and Scania are shooting themselves in the foot when they try to lobby for reduced climate requirements. “It becomes a vicious circle: without clear goals for truck manufacturers to switch to the production of electric trucks, no charging stations will be built. Fewer electric trucks from European truck manufacturers in the next three years also opens the way for China to more easily take over the market with its cheap electric trucks. It threatens the EU’s competitiveness and jobs.”

Six Chinese EV truck makers are entering Europe this year with technology that is already three to four years ahead and 30% cheaper. Similarly, in North America–a region where Volvo plans to aggressively scale market share–the Tesla Semi has entered high-volume production, landing at $146,000 to $290,000 cheaper than Volvo’s VNR Electric while offering over double the driving range.

Instead of cutting prices or accelerating engineering to meet this massive price undercut, Volvo offered a watery defence, dismissing the immediate competitive threat by shifting the focus entirely to post-purchase ecosystems. Volvo’s Press Manager Claes Eliasson dismissed the immediate price threat by stating:

“The purchase price is only part of the total cost. It is the total cost of the entire life cycle that is interesting to our customers: service, utilities, spare parts and guarantees that the truck will not stand still.”

Relying on legacy service networks while being heavily undercut on both upfront price and battery range is a dangerous gamble. Volvo is falling into a trap, using political lobbying to slow down the transition domestically, while its global competitors move at full speed.

Last month at its AGM shareholder resolution by Danish public retirement fund Akademiker Pension outlined concerns over “governance, credibility and long term value creation” voicing concerns that “future value creation [migrate] from European manufacturers.” Strong regulation is essential to provide the “investment security” needed to scale the EV transition. Weakening these standards will only “slow down precisely these effects and thus weaken… competitiveness,” particularly against new entrants.

By lobbying to lower the climate bar at home and across the Atlantic, Volvo isn’t protecting its future, it is merely buying time while international competitors sprint ahead. For an industry backbone employing millions, this shortsighted strategy is a massive risk.