For repeatable journeys where a load can be moved between suitable handover points without robotic handling, a conventional transport robot is an obvious option. If several stations need to be actively loaded or unloaded, businesses should compare a mobile manipulator with a humanoid robot. A demonstration alone does not prove that a system is safe to use alongside people or cost-effective. Before deployment, assess the hazards in the specific workplace and check the conformity documents applicable to the system in question.
If containers need to be picked up or put down at several existing stations, it is worth checking whether a mobile arm will do the job or whether a humanoid robot is needed for the specific process. Fraunhofer IPA describes material transport as a demonstration application; this does not amount to general approval for use.
If you move materials between set points, check whether a transport platform without a gripper arm can handle the handovers. Mobile Industrial Robots and OMRON describe systems for internal transport tasks; check their suitability and payload capacity for the actual setup and route.
If cycle times, encounters with employees or costs have not yet been assessed for your process, a limited trial can help bring unanswered questions to light. Fraunhofer IPA describes prototype trials, not the general readiness of a system for operational use.
Start by describing the load, route and handovers. Then compare whether the process needs a gripper arm, and what safety measures, integration and support each solution requires.
| Consideration | What to check before buying | Who it matters most to |
|---|---|---|
| Handovers and gripping | Container shape and gripping point; station height and the required pick-up or placement action. | If existing stations need to be actively serviced, I want to know whether an arm can handle the handover reliably. This is a priority for around 31% of businesses whose main concern is gripping and handovers. |
| Route, load and cycle time | Load, including any attachments; narrow points, floor surfaces, doors and journeys per shift. | If loads need to travel along a challenging route, I want to check that the actual setup is suitable for the route and cycle time. Around 25% of businesses prioritise route and load. |
| Safe operation alongside people | Encounters with people and potential disruptions; safety measures for travelling, gripping and restarting. | If employees use the same areas, I want the risks across the whole process to be assessed. Around 25% of businesses prioritise safe shared working areas. |
| Integration and support | Grippers, stations and setup; training, maintenance and procedures for dealing with faults. | If ongoing support and integration costs are still difficult to estimate, I want to trial these aspects as part of the process before buying. Around 19% of businesses prioritise a predictable implementation. |
For a workplace in Germany, § 5 ArbSchG requires an assessment of work-related hazards. The European Commission explains that machinery placed on the EU market before 20 January 2027 must comply with Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC. Whether a particular robot system falls within its scope, and which documents are required for the configuration offered, must be checked for that specific product.
Fraunhofer IPA used a Unitree G1 in a material transport demonstration. This does not prove that the same configuration is approved for another workplace or is cost-effective.
Trial the system using your own containers, routes, handovers and typical disruptions. Assess the safety of the specific process separately.
A humanoid robot’s arm payload is not the same as the maximum payload of a transport platform. The setup and conditions of use also affect how suitable it is for a particular transport task.
Compare the load, gripping position and attachments separately for each route, and check how handovers at the stations will work.
Where an integrated system is placed on the market as a finished product, the conformity of the complete system is relevant; the marking on individual components does not automatically answer this question.
Ask who is responsible and request the documents for the specific configuration. Your Europe explains who is responsible for the declaration of conformity for a finished product placed on the EU market.
The G1 and G1 EDU are humanoid candidates for a limited material transport pilot. Fraunhofer IPA used a G1 in a demonstration.
According to KUKA, the KMR iisy combines a cobot with a mobile platform. It could be an alternative to compare if an arm is needed at several stations.
The MiR250 is a mobile transport platform for journeys within a business, where an integrated gripper arm is not needed.
The LD-250 is a mobile robot for transporting materials between workstations, production lines and storage areas.
Digit 5 is a humanoid robot to compare for handling tasks in logistics, not a confirmed indication of a purchase offer in Germany.
This selection includes a humanoid robot as a possible pilot option for transport tasks where active gripping needs to be assessed.
No image available
Could be considered for a pilot if the transport process requires active gripping; its suitability needs to be demonstrated in the specific process.
The product name specifies force-controlled hands. According to the product description, the SDK/API is currently unavailable.
Record the load, including its container, the start and destination stations, the gripping action, route, frequency and typical disruptions. Use this information to compare a transport-only robot with a mobile manipulator. Then check whether a humanoid robot would offer a necessary additional benefit for the specific process.
No. It does not replace an assessment of hazards in the specific workplace. For machinery within the scope of the directive and placed on the EU market before 20 January 2027, check the requirements of Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC, including the appropriate marking and declaration of conformity; the European Commission explains this legal framework. Independently, under § 5 ArbSchG, the employer must assess work-related hazards and identify the necessary safety measures.
The employer must assess workplace hazards and identify the necessary safety measures. For employees using the system as work equipment, BAuA rule TRBS 1116 sets out requirements for qualifications and instruction. The details depend on the equipment and the task it is intended for.
For the exact system configuration, ask for the relevant conformity documents, marking and operating instructions, as well as details of who is responsible for integration, maintenance, faults and spare parts. A declaration for individual components is not automatically sufficient for an integrated finished product placed on the market as a whole. Check the documents and responsibilities that apply to the specific offer.