DLG Trend Monitor 2023: Robots in the Food and Beverage Industry

In 2014, the first DLG Trend Monitor “Robots in the Food and Beverage Industry” was published. Almost ten years have passed since then and much has changed - not only in the food industry. One aspect that is becoming increasingly important economically is the automation of production processes. Robot systems play an important role here. That’s why robots, after being the subject of a DLG Expert Knowledge publication last year, are to be the focus of a DLG Trend Monitor again this year. The objective of the Trend Monitor survey was, as always, to obtain an overview of (future) areas of application and developments of robots as well as to compile objectives and reasons for an application of robots in the food industry. A special focus this year was also on the education and training of professionals who handle robots in their everyday work.

As a result, with this publication the DLG is presenting the fourth trend monitor “Robots in the food and beverage industry”, which answers questions on the above-mentioned topics based on their status in 2022.

The comparability of this trend monitor with the previous versions is limited, as some of the questions were formulated differently than before. In addition, the survey was answered by different companies than in previous years. This should be taken into account when interpreting the data. 

It should also be noted that not every question was answered by all respondents, as some questions were specifically directed only at companies that use robots and others at those that do not. If the entire group has not answered a question, this will be pointed out at the appropriate point.

The participants in the survey belong to many different sectors of the food industry. The questions in this Trend Monitor were most frequently answered by members of the meat, sausage and poultry sector (18 %), followed by employees in the beverage (12 %), (fine) bakery products (11 %) and milk, dairy products and cheese sectors (11 %) (Figure 1). 

If we look at the areas of the company in which the respondents work, as shown in Figure 2, we can see that most of the participants are part of the management (28 %), of quality management/assurance/hygiene/analytics (23 %) or of production, manufacturing and technology (20 %).

By looking at the survey results on the number of robots in the surveyed companies (Figure 5), it can be seen that with 33 companies, slightly more than half of the participants (51 %) do not own any robots. Of the remaining 49 % of participants, most companies own five to ten (12 %), one (9 %) or two (11 %) robots. More than 100 robots are not in use at any of the companies surveyed.

Figure 6 and Figure 7 show the relationship between company size and robot ownership based on the number of employees and turnover. It can be seen that companies of all sizes and turnover figures use robots. 

Participants who stated that their company does not use robots gave different reasons for the lack of application so far (multiple answers possible). Most of the companies (19 mentions) stated that robots are currently not economically interesting for them. 

Other frequently cited reasons are insufficient experience (7 mentions), lack of information about possibilities (6 mentions), the space issue (6 mentions) and a lack of robot applications (6 mentions) (Figure 8). When asked whether they would like to acquire robots in the future, the largest percentage answered “don’t know” (49 %). 30 % of the companies still do not want to use robots in the future, while the smallest part with 21 % intend to do so (Figure 9). 

The situation is somewhat different for companies that already use robots. Among these, almost two thirds (62 %) plan to purchase more robots. In contrast, 22 % have no plans to purchase more robots, while 16 % are not sure (Figure 10). 

This shows, as was also evident in the 2017 and 2020 Trend Monitors, that companies with robot experience are more likely to acquire more robots than companies that do not have robots are to do so for the first time.

This can be explained by the wide range of possible applications for articulated-arm robots, which result from their three-dimensional movement capability as well as their high payload and reach. Due to their high speed but low payload, delta robots are mainly used for pick and place applications (Figure 13) or also for packaging (Figure 14). Gantry robots are crane-like systems that are often used for palletising due to their large possible payload (Figure 12) (Expert Knowledge on Robotics, 2022).

The companies participating in the survey mostly use their robots in logistics for palletising (26 mentions), order picking (12 mentions) and depalletising (11 mentions). Only one company did not use any of its robots in logistics (Figure 12). This shows that robots in logistics often take on tasks that physically stress employees and endanger occupational safety. As a result, companies can create better working conditions at the workplace through the use of robots (Figure 16).

In the area of processing, the robots of the companies are mainly responsible for positioning (14 mentions), sorting (12 mentions), checking and dosing (7 mentions each). However, 9 of the companies with robot experience, and therefore a large proportion, do not use robots in processing (Figure 13). Here it can be seen that robots often take on so-called pick and place tasks where precision is required on the assembly line. The use of robots can replace unattractive, monotonous work and save personnel through automation. This reduces costs and, in view of the shortage of skilled workers, secures production processes.

In packaging, the companies surveyed use robots primarily for repackaging (14 mentions). They are also used in primary packaging (12 mentions), labelling (7 mentions) and closing (6 mentions). Here as well, there are 8 companies that do not use robots for packaging (Figure 14). 

In addition to logistics, processing and packaging, robots are also used in catering and cleaning (Figure 15).

As in previous years, another major part of the Trend Monitor was devoted to the training of people in a company who have to deal with robots either through their decision-making authority or their area of responsibility in everyday work. All participants were able to answer the first question in this section on the adequacy of existing further training opportunities. All other questions were answered exclusively by companies that owned robots at the time of the survey.

First, the participants were asked to what extent they considered the currently existing training opportunities in the food and beverage industry to be sufficient for effective management of the robotic systems. At 35 %, more than a third of the respondents assessed the training opportunities in relation to robots as insufficient, while 22 % could not identify any lack of such opportunities. However, 43 % were not sure how to evaluate the existing offers for further training (Figure 17).

In order to be able to assess the need for and scope of further training, it is essential to know the training levels of both the people who decide on the use of robots in a company and those who operate the robotic equipment. 

In the companies surveyed, people with very different educational backgrounds are responsible for making decisions about the use of robots (multiple answers possible). In most of the operating companies, people who have completed or received a university degree (23 mentions), a master craftsman’s examination (20 mentions) and/or a technical college entrance qualification (13 mentions) are the decision-makers regarding the use of robots (Figure 18). 

The situation is somewhat different, however, for the people who operate the robots. People who have passed a master craftsman’s examination (19 mentions) were also frequently named here, but people with dual/company (18 mentions) and/or school-based training (12 mentions) are also employed (Figure 19).  

Therefore, it would be desirable to integrate robotics into the training curriculum in the above-mentioned types of training in order to better prepare workers technically for their tasks in professional life and to give them a certain degree of security in this subject.

Although when asked whether existing training opportunities are sufficient, the largest proportion of those who could give a clear answer felt that they were insufficient (35 %, Figure 17), it can be seen in Figure 20 that the largest proportion of companies with robot experience (59 %) see no need for a “robot driving licence” for robot operators. However, 38 % also think that such a “robot driving licence” is necessary (Figure 20). 

If something like a “robot driving licence” were to be introduced, most companies with robot experience believe that such a “driving licence” should include content on occupational health and safety systems (29 mentions), basic technical knowledge (27 mentions), food safety and quality (21 mentions), and guidelines, standards and legal regulations (21 mentions) (Figure 21).