Humanoid Robots in Packaging Part 2: Cautious Curiosity Among CPGs

Some hurdles for immediate adoption

A humanoid may seem like a great fit for space-constrained, repetitive, or dangerous tasks on the CPG plant floor, but a few unknowns remain that stall adoption.

“[Humanoids] can walk, they can grasp items, they’re starting to learn, but they’re still like an infant right now,” Powell says. “The automotive industry will be the first to see humanoid robots in production plants in the next couple years, and I anticipate humanoid robots to start showing up in other industries including food production by about 2030.”

One concern is specific to food manufacturers like Schreiber Foods. Food-contact situations require additional precautions for automation, “if you’re inside a raw cheese area, even if you’re not directly handling product, you need to design to a higher sanitary standard,” Powell says.

This might include wipe-down cleaning capabilities to ensure sanitization, IP69k wash-down capability, equipment designed to eliminate bacterial harborage points, or even PPE for the robot, such as gloves for picking or holding product or a protective boot covering to avoid cross-contamination between rooms.

General safety is also a concern for Powell. While there are industry standards for industrial robots and AGVs, specific safety standards for humanoid robots are still being developed. 

(Read part one of this series for a deeper look at the current state of humanoid robot standards, and watch the above video to learn how Agility Robotics is enabling its robot's use in OSHA-regulated environments.)

Without specific standards for humanoid robots currently in place, Powell questions what happens if a unit loses power.

“Does it just fall? And how do we prevent it from falling on someone? There are a lot of safety considerations that we’ll have to go through,” Powell says. “For any project that we put in, we do a full task-based safety risk assessment, and a project involving humanoid robots would be no different. We’ll have to go through and figure out all the potential tasks that people will do around this robot, look at it from a safety standpoint, and make sure any safety concerns are addressed.”

The snack company engineering director again shares a similar sentiment, saying, “the biggest thing for me is safety and reliability; that’s what we need the most. And not only employee safe, but food safety safe.”

Another key factor for integration is employee acceptance, ensuring workers on the plant floor are able and willing to work alongside humanoids day to day.

“It will be a learning curve. Some people will be quick to accept the technology and willing to work alongside of it, while others may have reservations,” Powell says.

Addressing both safety concerns and worker acceptance, Powell suggests a solution that falls in line with Agility’s current procedures with Digit. He sees potential in humanoids starting off enclosed in safety fencing, allowing workers to “see it working and not have as much fear around it, before you start taking those fences down and allowing it to work more collaboratively.”

According to the snack company engineering director, the priority needs to be responsible CPG manufacturing, which rules out riding the absolute cutting edge of new technology. “But we definitely want to be a very close follower of the cutting edge, and make sure things are tested and safe,” the source says.CPG engineering leaders must consider a holistic view of factors from OEE to worker safety when evaluating new automation.Flashvector via Getty Images

Whether humanoids see widespread adoption in consumer packaged goods comes down to how many companies embrace it in the short term, creating a “critical mass” of early adopters, the snack company engineering director predicts.

“For us, longevity means 10 to 15 years when we make a capital investment; that’s how long we expect those types of equipment and robots to last. So, until you get enough people out there making them, get enough runtime on them, that’s what it’s going to take to kickstart that movement,” the source says.

How price fits into the decision-making process

When it comes to evaluating any new machinery, pricing structures play a central role in how CPGs make decisions. But there’s no single model that works across the board.

Agility Robotics and Apptronik, both featured in part one of this report, offer their humanoid robots through a robots-as-a-service (RaaS) approach, giving customers the option to pay a subscription fee for all equipment, software, and services.

The RaaS approach helps to shield the customer from the technology’s rapid advancement, explains Parker Conroy, senior director of product at Apptronik.

 “Think of the graphics card on your laptop; The one you have now is not the one you had four years ago for good reason, because it’s become 25 times more powerful. You want that same rapid advancement in a humanoid, and so by offering a robots-as-a-service model, we’re able to shield the end user from all those shifts and changes in the technology,” Conroy says.

It also supports end users with the supplier’s own service technicians, offloading maintenance and upgrading responsibilities, “instead of just dropping off the robots and letting them be,” Conroy says.

But RaaS may not be the perfect option for some end-users. That’s why Agility also offers a CapEx model to purchase a fleet of Digit robots, along with a software-as-a-service (SaaS) agreement to cover the latest upgrades, skills and improvements. The company says this brings an ROI in about two years.

“For some customers, it’s easier for them to expend the capital upfront. Some have better access to capital, so it’s more aligned with their business model in general,” says Melonee Wise, former chief product officer at Agility. Wise participated in this report before leaving her position in summer 2025. “We try to be relatively indifferent to the customer’s business needs,” she says.

Powell suggests a leasing model in line with the RaaS approach, where each humanoid would cost somewhere in the range of $40,000 per year, would be an attractive offer.The choice between RaaS and CapEx comes down to operational circumstances at each plant, according to the snack company engineering director.Aleksandr Durnov via Getty Images

“By leasing we could see the cost justification, as long as it can reliably perform the tasks. It might be harder to justify at the full upfront purchase cost the humanoid robot manufacturers would need to sell the initial units,” Powell says.

Just as Conroy describes RaaS as a shield against rapidly upgrading technology, Powell also sees potential in such a model to keep the robots up to date.

“There are going to be a lot of improvements and changes that’ll come out of those first models. I think if [suppliers] are trying to sell them at prices that are too high, the companies will get discouraged quickly. If you do a lease, you can justify the yearly costs while also gaining technology advances as they are rolled out.” Powell says.

For the multinational snack company, the appeal of one model over another depends on plant-level realities. The pricing model decision comes down to the experience of maintenance technicians and staff at each plant, and generally how quickly the model will return on investment, says the company’s engineering director.

“It’s not black and white; it all depends on the circumstances and the location of the project,” the source says.

Beyond individual manufacturers, packaging line integrators offer another useful vantage point. Because they design and implement lines for multiple CPGs, they have their ears to the ground on technology trends in the industry and have a solid understanding of what it takes for new equipment to fit seamlessly on the plant floor. Learn one integrator’s perspective on the current outlook for humanoid robots in packaging and processing in part 3 of this series, releasing September 30.