Your Suppliers Are Getting Robots. Your Playbook Hasn’t Caught Up.

Sometime between early 2022 and early 2025, the share of organizations using robots in their plants or warehouses more than doubled, from 23% to 48%, according to a joint study by MHI, Peerless Research Group, and The Robotics Group. More than half of the 216 companies surveyed had less than $50 million in annual revenue. The conversation about warehouse automation has, for years, been dominated by images of Amazon’s million-robot fleet or Walmart’s multi-billion-dollar Symbotic partnership. Those investments are significant, but the most consequential shift may be happening several tiers down the supply chain, in the distribution centers of midsized suppliers, regional distributors, and third-party logistics operators whose capabilities directly determine how product reaches store shelves and consumer doorsteps.

The implications reach well past the warehouse floor. When the supplier base automates, the assumptions underneath supplier selection, fulfillment cost modeling, and network design all come into question at once.

The Subscription That Rewired the Capital Stack

The financial mechanism behind the adoption surge is not a mystery. Robotics-as-a-service and software-as-a-service models have converted what was once a seven-figure capital expenditure into a monthly operating expense. According to MHI’s 2024 survey, 64% of responding companies were using a RaaS or SaaS system, up from 46% two years earlier. That trajectory matters because it removes the single largest barrier to entry for companies that could never justify the upfront investment.

The practical effect is already visible. Mobile accessories distributor Superior Communications chose to integrate 37 multipurpose robots into its Tennessee distribution center through a RaaS arrangement, with CEO Solomon Chen citing the financing structure as a deciding factor. UniUni, a parcel carrier operating more than 100 warehouses in North America, began automating its sorting and sequencing operations in 2023 through a similar subscription model before expanding the program publicly in April 2025.

These are not billion-dollar enterprises. They invested because the financial model finally allowed them to. A whitepaper from Pennsylvania State University, commissioned by MHI and analyzing the association’s 2024 data, found that identifying and achieving a clear return on investment remained the top barrier to technology spending. Subscription pricing does not eliminate that barrier, but it lowers the threshold at which a positive business case becomes plausible. For companies shipping product to retailers that demand increasingly precise fulfillment performance, the calculus has shifted from “can we afford to automate?” toward “can we afford not to?”

The Fulfillment Expectations Your Suppliers Now Face

Amazon deployed its one millionth warehouse robot in mid-2025, according to a company announcement. Three out of four Amazon global deliveries now involve some form of robotic assistance, per The Wall Street Journal. Walmart reported in its third-quarter 2025 earnings that more than 60% of its U.S. stores receive a portion of their freight from automated distribution centers, and over half of its e-commerce fulfillment center volume moves through automated systems. Walmart said the increased use of automation was driving improved productivity on a per-unit basis. CFO John David Rainey, speaking on the earnings call covered by Supply Chain Dive, tied the automated fulfillment operations directly to lower shipping costs.

These figures establish the performance baseline against which every supplier, distributor, and logistics partner will be measured. When a major retailer can process, sort, and ship product with fewer errors and lower per-unit costs because its own network is automated, it will not indefinitely tolerate partners who cannot keep pace. Retailer compliance requirements, on-time delivery windows, and fill rate expectations already reflect these capabilities. The retailer’s willingness to absorb inefficiency in its inbound supply chain shrinks as its own operations become more precise.

What makes the MHI data so relevant for CPG and retail leaders is the timing. Supplier automation is accelerating at exactly the moment when retailer automation is raising the bar. A midsized CPG company managing distribution across Amazon, Walmart, Target, and Kroger simultaneously now faces a world where each of those retailers is tightening its operational standards, and the supplier’s own warehouse infrastructure needs to keep up across all of them at once.

Recalibrating Supplier Due Diligence

The conventional approach to evaluating warehouse and logistics partners has leaned heavily on capacity, geography, and cost per unit. Automation capability has been a secondary consideration, relevant mainly when evaluating the largest operators. That framework no longer reflects the reality of a market where half of surveyed companies already deploy warehouse robotics.

If nearly half of companies surveyed by MHI are now using warehouse robotics, and the subscription model continues to lower the entry barrier, then the distinction between “automated” and “manual” operations will soon cease to correlate with company size. A regional distributor with 30 robots handling pick-and-pack may outperform a larger competitor relying on manual labor for the same functions, particularly during peak volume periods when labor availability tightens. According to a 2024 survey by Logistics Viewpoints and ARC Advisory Group, 56% of supply chain respondents cited warehouse operations as one of the functions most affected by labor shortages, with 37% characterizing their resource constraints as high to extreme.

Procurement and supply chain teams at CPG companies should treat automation maturity as a standard evaluation criterion alongside the traditional metrics. The relevant questions are specific: which warehouse processes has a logistics partner automated, does the partner operate under a capital or subscription model (with its implications for flexibility during volume spikes), and how do throughput and error rates compare between automated and manual workflows within the same operation? Sonya Snellenberger, VP of partnerships at Conexus Indiana, made the peer-learning dynamic explicit in her comments to Supply Chain Dive, noting that companies considering automation investments are more persuaded by peer outcomes than by vendor sales data. For the brands and retailers selecting these partners, the same logic applies. Documented results from comparable operators carry more weight than theoretical ROI projections.

The Quiet Compression of Trade Economics

When a supplier automates, it does not simply get faster; it changes the cost structure underneath the service it provides. Per-unit handling costs decline, error rates in pick accuracy and order completeness tend to improve, and throughput capacity becomes more predictable, less dependent on seasonal labor availability, and more responsive to volume surges during promotional periods.

CPG companies negotiating trade terms face a new dimension here. If a 3PL or distribution partner has reduced its per-unit fulfillment cost through automation, both parties need to determine how that cost reduction flows through the commercial relationship. Does the brand capture part of it through lower rates? Does the partner retain the savings as margin? Does the improvement in fill rates and on-time delivery performance generate enough value in avoided retailer chargebacks and improved shelf availability that the cost is secondary?

The financial stakes are concrete. Walmart and other major retailers have built compliance and chargeback programs that penalize suppliers for missed delivery windows, incorrect case counts, and labeling failures. Consider the gap between an automated warehouse consistently hitting 99% fill rates and a manual operation averaging 95%. Across a brand’s full volume at a given retailer, that kind of spread can represent hundreds of thousands of dollars in avoided chargeback penalties and preserved revenue from in-stock availability.

The Peer Effect and Its Strategic Consequences

MHI managing executive Jayesh Mehta cautioned in the Supply Chain Dive report that companies should avoid adopting robotics simply to match competitors, warning against what he called a “keeping up with the Joneses” mentality. He is right to flag the risk. Not every process benefits from automation, and poorly scoped deployments can consume capital without delivering proportional returns.

But the peer effect Snellenberger described, in which companies adopt automation after seeing results from comparable operators, creates a self-reinforcing cycle that retail and CPG leaders need to account for strategically. Once a critical mass of midsized suppliers, distributors, and logistics providers have automated key warehouse functions, the performance gap between automated and manual operations becomes a competitive differentiator visible in the data that retailers already track. Fill rates, on-time performance, throughput per labor hour: all of these metrics will increasingly separate the operators who have invested from those who have not.

Brand leaders managing distribution across multiple retailers should expect their partner landscape to bifurcate. Partners that automate will offer better performance, more predictable capacity, and increasingly competitive unit economics. Partners that remain manual will face mounting pressure from labor constraints, rising costs, and the compounding disadvantage of competing for the same labor pool as automated facilities that have already reduced their headcount requirements. The Peerless Research Group and Modern Materials Handling 2025 Industry Outlook study found that 64% of companies making investments were directing spending toward automation and technology, which means the manual operators are also watching their peers leave them behind.

For retailers managing supplier scorecards and evaluating brand partners, this bifurcation becomes a data source. Brands whose distribution infrastructure includes automated operations will, on average, produce better compliance metrics. That performance advantage will flow into category reviews, assortment decisions, and the allocation of finite shelf space and promotional support.

What the Robots Do Not Solve

The enthusiasm around accessible warehouse robotics should be tempered by what the technology does not address. Automation in the warehouse does not fix demand forecasting. Data integration challenges between a brand’s ERP system and a retailer’s EDI requirements remain untouched. A poorly planned promotional build will still arrive late. And misaligned inventory positioning across a multi-retailer network is a planning failure, not an execution failure that robots can compensate for.

Mehta’s point about investigating whether automation genuinely improves efficiency, rather than simply automating a task with no material difference, applies with particular force to CPG operations. A warehouse that automates palletizing but still receives inaccurate demand signals will produce neatly stacked pallets of the wrong product. The value of automation compounds when it operates on top of accurate planning, precise demand signals, and integrated systems. Without those foundations, the robot just moves product faster in the wrong direction.

CPG and retail leaders evaluating their own automation strategies, or the automation capabilities of their partners, need to assess the full workflow rather than the warehouse in isolation. The companies seeing the strongest returns from warehouse robotics are those that have simultaneously invested in the planning and data infrastructure that ensures the right product is in the right place before the robot ever touches it.

Automation as a Procurement Question, Not Just a Logistics One

The warehouse robotics adoption curve has bent sharply enough that it now affects decisions well beyond the four walls of the distribution center. Supplier selection, trade negotiations, fulfillment cost modeling, compliance risk assessment, and distribution network design all look different when a growing share of midsized operators can match the throughput and accuracy levels that were recently exclusive to the largest players.

The MHI data suggests this shift will accelerate. Subscription models keep lowering the entry point, peer success stories keep building the business case, and the major retailers keep tightening the performance standards that every supplier must meet. Three years ago, a CPG brand could reasonably evaluate its distribution partners without asking about automation. That is no longer true. The executives managing brand portfolios across Amazon, Walmart, Target, Kroger, and the broader retail landscape need to know not just what their partners ship, but how they ship it, and whether the infrastructure behind that answer is keeping pace with the rest of the industry.

Conversations On Retail

Conversations On Retail is a gathering place and resource center for retail and CPG executives, built to make it easier to stay current, discover the technologies and solutions shaping the industry, and connect with the people driving it forward.

We publish news, views, and reviews from staff editors, contributing experts, and trusted partners. Some articles are developed internally, while others are submitted by industry contributors or adapted from interviews and recorded conversations with industry leaders.