In Norway, sustainable logistics is shaped by two different and often conflicting narratives—those of public authorities and businesses. While both reference sustainability, they focus on various aspects of it. Public narratives show awareness of the three “grand narratives” of sustainable logistics: decarbonization, collective logistics, and the low-mobility society. However, public authorities mostly adopt a passive stance, assuming that logistics will benefit from broader transport shifts organically, such as reduced car use. Businesses, by contrast, take a more proactive—but narrower—approach focused almost exclusively on decarbonisation.
The Business Focus: Cleaner, Not Less
For companies operating in Norway, decarbonization is a dominant focus of the sustainability agenda. This translates into clear strategies to phase out internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, shift modes (e.g., from road to rail or sea), and reduce unnecessary transport where possible. However, business narratives do not actively promote logistics collaboration or systemic reductions in transport demand. Instead, any references to collective logistics or low-mobility concepts are typically framed in financial rather than environmental terms—cost savings are the primary motivation.
Even when companies acknowledge the importance of modal shift or shared deliveries, these ideas remain secondary. In essence, business approaches treat logistics decarbonization as a matter of vehicle and technology choice, not a transformation of logistics systems or behaviors.
The Public Sector: Broad, But Passive
Municipal and national authorities, meanwhile, speak more broadly about sustainable transport but are hesitant to intervene in logistics directly. The Norwegian national zero-growth policy—which aims to freeze the growth in passenger transport—explicitly exempts logistics. As a result, cities like Oslo mostly focus their sustainability efforts on passenger mobility.
When it comes to freight, the main narrative again becomes decarbonization. Interviews reveal that cities support initiatives for freight consolidation or urban logistics hubs, but they rarely present strong policy leadership or operational plans. Public consolidators—city-led logistics initiatives—are largely absent. Most municipalities are content to shield city centers from freight rather than redesigning freight flows structurally.
Only Oslo shows signs of more proactive planning, with proposals to reduce driving distances and develop logistics infrastructure. Even there, however, freight is seen as secondary to broader urban mobility goals.
A Technocratic Lens
Both public and private actors rely on technical-rational solutions to drive change: cleaner trucks, more efficient routes, and smarter infrastructure. However, this emphasis on efficiency does little to address the broader questions of land use, energy consumption, or material flows. Sustainable logistics becomes a matter of clean technology rather than rethinking how much and what kind of logistics activity society needs.
This technical approach is reinforced by national targets (like emissions reduction) and global frameworks (like the SDGs). Publicly owned logistics companies such as Posten are leading in electrification, while foreign firms lean into a mix of zero-emission solutions. However, the underlying assumption remains: logistics will continue, possibly grow, but in a cleaner form.
Missed Opportunities and Reinforced Dominance
What emerges is a feedback loop: public authorities frame logistics sustainability narrowly, essentially leaving it to the market to address. Businesses respond with focused decarbonization strategies, reinforcing the idea that cleantech is enough. This mutual reinforcement sidelines the more radical, transformative potential of collective logistics and low-mobility strategies.
The result is a missed opportunity. While passenger mobility policies increasingly integrate environmental, spatial, and behavioral goals, logistics remains framed as an externality—something to clean up, not to redesign fundamentally.
Time for a Broader Narrative
This imbalance could hinder efforts toward sustainable transport overall. The three grand narratives—decarbonization, collective logistics, and low mobility—are co-dependent. If only one is pursued, the system-wide benefits of sustainable logistics won’t materialize.
To move forward, public authorities must do more than facilitate or regulate emissions. They must co-create new logistics models with businesses—models that integrate shared infrastructure, reduce freight demand, and rethink the spatial footprint of logistics. Only then will sustainable logistics mean more than just “cleaner trucks.” It will mean fewer trucks, better systems, and truly sustainable flows.