In under a decade, warehouse operations have gone through a drastic transformation through automation, with many manual processes becoming outdated. While this has arguably resulted in an improvement in safety for warehouse operatives overall, it has also introduced novel hazards. In this feature, MEPCA examines the impact of automation on warehouse safety.
First: “Risk depends on layout, behaviour and flow, not just whether a robot or person is doing the task. Automation doesn’t simplify risk. It shifts where it sits.” James Smith, COE, A-SAFE.
Second:“A well-planned, safety-focused setup not only meets regulations, it also keeps your people, property and processes safe.” Will Sabin, Sales Office Manager, Troax.
According to research by Forbes[1], Warehouse Worker is the third most dangerous profession in the UK, with a danger rating of 25, one point less than Police Officer (26), while Firefighter understandably tops the chart with a rating of 66.
What makes warehouses such dangerous working environments? As employees navigate the stacks and aisles at speed, they are at risk of slips and trips, and boxes falling on them from height. Then there are manual handling and ergonomic strains and injuries, as well as the risk of collisions with forklifts, and chemical hazards from cleaning products and certain stock items. The ever-increasing pressure of order fulfilment speeds exacerbates all of these dangers.
Automation can help reduce injuries and risks to Warehouse Workers by eliminating repetitive manual tasks, or reducing the requirement for them to work in risk-associated areas of a warehouse, such as loading docks, mezzanines, or areas with high concentrations of vehicle traffic.
A-SAFE provides workplace safety solutions globally, including to warehouses, where the practical impact of automation has been plain to see. We spoke to A-SAFE CEO James Smith, who explained:
“Automation means fewer people, less risk. When implemented safely, automation can reduce the number of risky manual tasks employees face. Take heavy lifting or repetitive movement; those jobs tend to cause strain injuries over time. If a cobot takes that on, the strain disappears. AMRs can also reduce foot traffic by handling transport runs, which reduces the chances of pedestrian-vehicle interaction.”
However, the ability of automation to improve safety is only part of the story. As warehouses introduce new technologies, such as collaborative robots (cobots), AMRs (Autonomous Mobile Robots), conveyor systems and AI tools, etc., they unavoidably introduce new hazards into the warehouse environment, including heavy, fast moving machinery and high voltage power sources.
Amazon, which operates at the pinnacle of automated warehouse operations, has been criticised for the injury rates at its Californian facilities[2]. The Strategic Organizing Center (SOC) report found that Amazon warehouse employees suffered injuries at twice the rate of other warehouse staff. More alarming still, the report found that, in 2021, the injury rate of Amazon warehouses with robotic-sorting was 28% higher than facilities without.
That is not to say, necessarily, that the automation systems are at fault, or indeed that automation makes a warehouse less safe, as there are many factors involved, but it does raise some concerns.
How can warehouses ensure that they integrate automation effectively and safely into their businesses, mitigating any risk to employees by design? To address this, we must first look at some of the common hazards associated with automation.
The hazards of automation
Troax designs and implements warehouse partitioning, with automated warehouse accounting for a growing segment of the company’s market. As such, they commonly design and deliver partitioning to protect employees from automated systems (and automations from misuse by employees).
Speaking to MEPCA, Will Sabin, Sales Office Manager, who oversees both technical sales office sites in the UK (Kingswinford & Swindon offices), broke down what he saw as the main hazards introduced into warehouses by automation.
First among them are the mechanical hazards of automated systems, i.e., the moving parts and machinery, as he explained: “Automated robots, conveyor systems and automated vehicles can all cause risk of collision or entrapment when integrated into a manual warehouse environment”. This risk is compounded by the introduction of new processes into a warehouse, as “fast moving equipment coupled with a loud working environment may reduce an employee’s awareness of their surroundings”, leading to a risk of accident.
Another factor is the unplanned start-up of machinery. Will explained that machines, including cobots, could power on automatically if not properly guarded.
Lastly, he pointed out a hazard common to any warehouse regardless of the level of automation: operator error. “Without the correct training, workers may unknowingly misuse equipment or enter restricted zones”.
A-SAFE’s James Smith agreed that operators entering restricted areas are a major hazard associated with automation in warehouses:
“Unauthorised entry into automation zones is the main hazard. Automation typically operates in defined areas, but the surrounding space remains active with people and vehicles. This creates a high risk of accidental contact, especially near goods movement routes.”
James also addressed a common misconception around warehouse automation: that it removes people entirely. “In reality, most systems operate in specific zones while surrounding areas remain active with manual work. That’s where risk builds—at the edges, where people or vehicles cross into automated zones without control measures.
“Automation performs best with standardised loads, but logistics often involves mixed shapes and sizes. That forces systems to slow down or adapt, which introduces unpredictable movement. Manual labour remains essential in fast-paced areas, where segregation from vehicles is still needed. A fixed safety setup rarely covers this mix. Risk depends on layout, behaviour and flow, not just whether a robot or person is doing the task. Automation doesn’t simplify risk. It shifts where it sits.”
Safely integrating automation
Equipped with a better understanding of how automation changes the risks to warehouse operatives, we now turn to what steps companies can take to uphold the safety of their employees when implementing warehouse automation systems.
Will Sabin recommends firstly understanding where the hazards are and work from there: “Start with a full risk assessment to identify the hazards and then plan how to control them.
“Use of a strong physical safety guard such as mesh panels and interlocked gates is important to segregate people from dangerous areas – but make sure that all equipment meets current UK safety standards.”
He added, “It’s also important to clearly mark zones where people and machines operate; using signs to guide safe movement and train staff so they know how to work safely around any new technology.”
Expanding on this crucial separation, James: “To achieve this, you can’t rely on old layouts or generic barrier systems. You’ve got to look at the real risks on your site, i.e., vehicle and people route mapping, and pay strict attention to any reported near misses.
“Before anything else, walk the floor and understand the workflow – what’s automated and what isn’t. Don’t just rely on CAD drawings or layout plans. Watch how forklifts, AMRs and people move during peak and off-peak hours. Do they share tight corners? Are there blind spots at intersections? Are speed limits realistic based on the activity in each zone? Go beyond visual inspections and get real data on where risks are forming and reduce the risk accordingly with the right solutions.”
This level of scrutiny needs to be applied to the suppliers of any element of the automation system. Will advised that warehouses should always “work with suppliers who take safety seriously and offer ongoing support. A well-planned, safety-focused setup not only meets regulations; it also keeps your people, property and processes safe.”
Related to this, both our commentators highlighted the importance of adhering to safety standards when implementing automation systems, including Performance Level (PL), which, Will explained, is determined by the seriousness of risk and frequency a worker is exposed to it.
James insisted that the only way to not know if an element of the automation system is fit for purpose is if its performance is tested and verified by an independent body: “Independent testing by bodies like TÜV Nord and certification under PAS 13 confirm that the specification reflects real-world capability.”
He concluded, “When protection has been tested against the risk it’s meant to withstand, you know it belongs in your facility.”
Compliance with Bureau Veritas
To explore warehouse automation safety further, through the lens of compliance, we turned to the experienced team at Bureau Veritas. As globally established machine safety specialists, Bureau Veritas offers independent and impartial consultancy or verification services to companies implementing warehouse automation systems.
Its team helps with compliance at every step of the process, from the initial design stages, where they help build a clear specification that will meet compliance, through to implementation with design reviews, hazard assessments and documentation reviews. Post-installation, they conduct a full inspection and testing to ensure the system meets the compliance specifications.
As they regularly act as final verification services after the fact, they are well aware of the most commonly made mistakes:
“Many automation projects consist of multiple pieces of equipment being combined to perform as one system. One key area commonly overlooked is failing to identify who is responsible for the safety and compliance of the overall system integration, usually accompanied by a mistaken belief that purchasing individually compliant pieces of equipment automatically results in a compliant system once integrated.”
However, it is not always enough to employ a third-party integrator. To illustrate this, they recalled an instance involving a new production line that included several robots; unaware of all safety related integration requirements, the integrator had unknowingly provided a non-conforming system. For this reason, they recommend confirming the proposed safety and compliance responsibilities with a third-party integrator upfront.
Should the warehouse operation have doubts about the compliance of any aspect of its installation, Bureau Veritas recommends getting an urgent review by a verified and experienced body to identify areas of non-conformity and put in place a plan of corrective action. Meanwhile, the business should swiftly implement appropriate short-term safety containment methods until the issues can be permanently resolved.
When it comes to human-robot collaboration, which is often a focal point when people consider warehouse automation, Bureau Veritas’ specialists start with a fundamental question:
“Does it really need to be collaborative?”
As humans and robots interacting in a shared space bring increasing risk, it is important to question whether it is justified.
“The company needs to fully understand the potential complexities of designing, implementing and maintaining a collaborative system, and not be drawn in with thinking because they buy an ‘off the shelf collaborative robot’ it is inherently safe for their application, when in reality they are merely ‘collaborative capable’, which still requires the necessary steps to be taken to establish a safe and compliant solution.”
Bureau Veritas instead recommends defining whether a collaborative system, with its potential complexity and cost, is the optimal choice, or if a non-collaborative solution would be equally as effective.
In their final remarks, the Bureau Veritas team offered advice to companies considering warehouse automation:
“Companies should always bear in mind that compliance with the CE/UKCA legislative frameworks is mandatory and should not be left as an afterthought. Early engagement with specialists in the discipline is vital to achieving a right first-time solution, helping avoid costly and disruptive rework, and preventing personnel exposure to potentially hazardous situations.”
To conclude
Warehouse automation is an inevitable progression for the industry, and it can certainly improve safety for employees. However, as discussed above, this comes with several caveats. Businesses should always do a full risk analysis, and scope any system of automation around an accurate and data-led understanding of the site’s processes, workflows and safety risks. If considering a system of human-robot collaboration, a business should consider whether the risk is justified.
By taking a pragmatic approach to safety and compliance when implementing automations system, businesses can enhance warehouse operation efficiency and protect their employees, helping to move the industry towards a point where the time since last accident is measured in years rather than days.
asafe.com/en-gb/
[1]forbes.com/uk/advisor/life-insurance/what-are-the-uks-most-dangerous-jobs
