Road freight transportation is important for the development of the global economy and, at the same time, one of the most destructive businesses when it comes to the environment and human health. As societies evolve, the need for freight transportation increases and the transport demand cannot in a sustainable way be fulfilled with the use of diesel trucks as it is done today. For the sake of our environment, the electrification transition needs to ramp up. However, when it comes to covering long distances with an electric truck, problems arise due to the lack of sufficient driving strategies, technology, and infrastructure adapted to the needs for long-distance electrified transportation. Therefore, different battery-electric truck solutions need to be evaluated to identify an economically, socially, and environmentally friendly way of operating. Consequently, the purpose of this master's thesis is the following:  From a carrier operation perspective, identify different solutions for electrified long-haul transportation and evaluate how cost competitive they are based on triple bottom line. To fulfill this purpose the study was divided into two steps, where the first one was to, through literature and interviews, identify different solutions for electric long-haul transportation and external parameters affecting these solutions. The parameters and solutions were then combined with different distances into focus cases. The second step consisted of identifying both internal and external cost drivers, which were used to create a cost model that considered environmental, economic, and social sustainability. The cost model was then used to evaluate the different focus cases to determine their competitiveness. The solutions were based on wire charging, a 300-, 450-, or 624 kWh battery, and were operated either through trailer swap or point-to-point. The external parameters that were the most important ones were battery degradation, the electricity market, and prerequisites for effective logistics. These were all combined into focus cases which were evaluated on the distances 300-, 400-, 500-, and 600 km. The cost model that was used included both internal and external costs to cover the economic, environmental, and social perspectives in the evaluation. To evaluate the focus cases and be able to compare it to a diesel solution the model considered the costs that differ between a battery electric truck and a diesel truck, which at an overall level was electricity cost, charging infrastructure, batteries, salary when charging, environmental, and social costs. For the distance of 300 km, the most competitive combination was wire charging, 300 kWh battery, and trailer swap. For the distances 400- and 500 km the best combination was wire charge, 450 kWh battery, and trailer swap. The best solution for 500 km was wire charge, 624 kWh battery, and trailer swap. The conclusion is, from a carrier operation perspective, that the most competitive solution to use is based on trailer swap, including a battery with a capacity that is adapted to the distance where the batteries can be charged through wire charging at a charger with a high utilization factor. Finally, for shorter distances, a battery electric truck is cost-competitive against a diesel truck. However, at longer distances a battery electric truck's competitiveness in comparison to a diesel truck gets worse, but at all distances the battery electric truck solution is both socially and environmentally beneficial in comparison to a diesel alternative.

The electrification of the road freight sector has been visible in society during the last couple of years, where several companies have started to o↵er electric solutions. Further, this is due to an increased awareness of the negative impact of transport on the environment. However, Key Per- formance Indicators (KPIs) for evaluation and benchmarking have not kept up with the transition, creating a problem for new electric solutions to be communicated and understood.  The following study has been conducted with a Partner Company, which is a Swedish company that currently o↵ers electric transport. The Partner Company experiences a knowledge gap regarding which KPIs transport buyers follow up, whereas they want to know which KPIs are demanded when going electric. Therefore, a framework of KPIs could facilitate communication between stakeholders on the market and, with some adjustments, also be tailored to fit the Partner Company’s business. The purpose of the study is thus to design a framework of KPIs to measure and evaluate electric road freight and further adjust the framework to Partner Company. Developing a framework of KPIs requires structuring the constituent parameters to ease usability and practical applicability. The literature highlights that designing a framework can be done by determining KPIs, character- istics of the KPIs, and an appropriate categorization. Therefore, literature was studied regarding transport, KPIs, and processes of developing frameworks of KPIs. Together with the literature and the background, the process developed further acted as a basis for developing the study’s three Research Questions, aiming to ease answering the study’s overall purpose. The first Research Question is based on understanding traditional, fossil-driven road freight. The second Research Question aims to design a framework connected to electric road freight. When answering these questions, empirical data consisted of semi-structured interviews with transport buyers, transport providers, associated organizations, OEMs, and internal interviews at the Partner Company. The data collected was further analyzed to enable answering the Research Questions. Furthermore, the third Research Question intended to adjust the framework to fit the Partner Company, where a workshop with the Partner Company acted as empirical input and, together with an analysis of answers, further answered the last Research Question.  The framework developed was designed to facilitate communication between transport providers and transport buyers. Therefore, it was essential to capture transport buyers’ concerns, level of knowledge, and maturity regarding electric road freight and match the needs with the transport provider’s o↵ers.  After analyzing empirical data validated by literature, a cross-functional categorization of the framework could be made. KPIs were selected and assigned in the constituent categories of De- livery service, Costs, Operational electric, Planning and optimization, and Environmental impact. Furthermore, several characteristics were applied to each of the included KPIs, where important characteristics are; based on data, traceable, transparent, and market-oriented. In order to meet the study’s purpose, the framework was further adjusted to the Partner Company. The adjusted framework created a clear structure to facilitate when the Partner Company communicates KPIs with transport buyers. Several KPIs are recommended to be raised to solely build trust during the sales process. Other, more operational KPIs should be used by existing customers when following up the transport activity, and some KPIs should be written when the Partner Company contracts with new customers. In conclusion, the study’s purpose was achieved, as the framework developed is considered to facilitate the measuring and evaluation of electric road freight. The generalizability of the framework enables stakeholders in the market to further apply it within their businesses. The framework reduces the knowledge gap and increases communicability for improved benchmarking. Further, as the framework can act as a standard, the understanding of electric road freight can increase, something the study’s problematization was intended to facilitate.