To Barcode or Not to Barcode – That is the Question

By Paul R Salmon FCILT, FSCM

Introduction – A Shakespearean Supply Chain Dilemma

“To barcode, or not to barcode, that is the question.” It may sound like a theatrical flourish borrowed from Hamlet, but it is also a very real debate that supply chain managers, warehouse operators, and defence logisticians continue to wrestle with. The barcode has been a staple of logistics since the 1970s. It is simple, cheap, and widely understood. Yet today, with RFID, QR codes, AI-driven recognition systems, and digital twins emerging as viable alternatives, the question is no longer whether barcodes work — but whether they are always the right tool.

This article explores the pros and cons of barcoding, considers where they remain indispensable, and examines whether we are reaching the twilight of the barcode era or just the beginning of a new evolution.

The Birth of a Supply Chain Icon

The first commercial barcode scan took place in 1974 in an Ohio supermarket. A packet of Wrigley’s chewing gum passed over the scanner, signalling the dawn of a new era for retail and logistics. What had begun as a simple idea — using lines and spaces to represent numbers — became a revolution. By standardising product identification through UPC (Universal Product Code) and later EAN (European Article Number) systems, industries gained something previously elusive: a universal language of stock-keeping.

For retail, the case was obvious. Fast, accurate checkout processes saved labour and increased throughput. For logistics, the benefits were even greater: goods could now be traced, inventories counted in real time, and errors reduced dramatically.

Within two decades, barcodes had spread from retail shelves to warehouses, production lines, and eventually military supply chains. But as with all technologies, success bred new questions: when, where, and to what extent should barcodes be applied?

Why Barcodes Took Over Supply Chains

Barcodes became ubiquitous because they solved three of the supply chain’s biggest headaches: accuracy, speed, and visibility.

Accuracy – Manual data entry is prone to error, with mis-keys, mis-labels, and mis-identifications causing costly mistakes. A barcode scan reduced that error rate by an order of magnitude. Speed – Scanning a code takes a fraction of a second, transforming the pace of order picking, stock-taking, and goods-in processing. Traceability – Each item or pallet could now be uniquely identified, tracked, and audited through a supply chain journey.

This accuracy and traceability fuelled the rise of ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) and WMS (Warehouse Management Systems). Without barcodes feeding them reliable data, these systems would have been less effective, if not unworkable.

The Case for Barcoding – Why It Still Matters

Even in 2025, barcodes remain one of the most valuable tools in a supply chain manager’s toolkit. Their advantages remain compelling:

Cost-effective: Labels and scanners are inexpensive compared to RFID tags or IoT devices. Universal acceptance: Barcodes are a global standard. Any supplier, anywhere, can generate and scan them. Simplicity: Training requirements are minimal, and staff across all industries are familiar with the technology. Regulatory compliance: In pharmaceuticals, defence, and aerospace, barcodes provide audit trails that regulators demand. Inventory control: Better demand forecasting, reduced stock-outs, and fewer excess holdings all flow from accurate barcode data.

For sectors like healthcare, where a mislabelled medicine can be catastrophic, or defence, where a missing part can ground an aircraft, barcodes still underpin resilience.

The Counter-Case – Why Not Everything Needs a Barcode

For all their strengths, barcodes are not perfect — and in some contexts, they may even be unnecessary.

Implementation cost: While cheap per unit, scaling barcoding across millions of low-value items requires investment in printers, scanners, labels, and training. Durability: Paper or adhesive labels degrade in harsh environments. In military operations, barcodes may peel, smear, or fade in sand, saltwater, or extreme temperatures. Overkill for low-value goods: Barcoding every bolt or washer can create more complexity than it saves. Line-of-sight requirement: Scanners need to physically “see” the barcode, unlike RFID which can read through packaging. Labour dependency: Someone must still scan the item — meaning errors, delays, or non-compliance can creep in.

The reality is that barcoding works best when the value of accuracy outweighs the cost and effort of labelling. For some goods, especially consumables or single-use materials, the return on investment may be marginal.

The Defence and Military Lens

Defence logistics provides a particularly sharp case study in the barcode debate. Unlike commercial supply chains, military supply chains operate in contested, austere environments. Labels must endure dust, humidity, heat, cold, and rough handling. Troops may have neither the time nor the technology to scan every barcode in the field.

Barcodes have been widely adopted in defence warehouses, depots, and domestic bases. They are central to asset tracking and NATO codification systems. However, when goods leave the depot and move into theatre, the reliability of barcodes diminishes.

For this reason, defence has increasingly looked towards RFID. The US Department of Defense mandated RFID tagging for many suppliers in the early 2000s, aiming to improve visibility into theatre supply lines. RFID allows pallet-level scanning without line of sight, reducing manual intervention.

That said, barcodes remain indispensable for individual-item traceability, especially for critical parts, pharmaceuticals, or munitions. Defence has therefore moved towards hybrid models: barcodes at item level, RFID at container or pallet level.

Civil vs. Defence Supply Chains – Contrasting Worlds

In retail or FMCG (Fast-Moving Consumer Goods), barcodes dominate. Shelves, distribution centres, and point-of-sale systems thrive on universal barcode scanning. The environment is controlled, volumes are high, and processes are standardised.

Humanitarian logistics sits somewhere in between. Speed of deployment is critical, but resources in the field are limited. Here, barcodes have proven valuable for aid agencies tracking medicines or relief kits, but durability remains a concern.

Defence supply chains face both extremes: highly standardised base operations and unpredictable, hostile environments. This duality makes barcoding simultaneously essential and insufficient — a paradox that keeps the debate alive.

Beyond Barcodes – Emerging Alternatives

Technology is already reshaping identification and tracking:

RFID (Radio Frequency Identification): Enables bulk, automated scanning without line of sight. Particularly valuable for palletised goods or in-transit visibility. QR Codes: More data capacity than traditional barcodes, allowing links to manuals, maintenance histories, or digital twins. Increasingly used in aerospace and automotive sectors. Computer Vision & AI: Camera systems can now identify items by shape, colour, or printed markings, eliminating the need for physical labels altogether. Blockchain Integration: Unique identifiers stored on distributed ledgers provide tamper-proof tracking across global supply chains.

Each of these technologies addresses one of the weaknesses of barcodes. Yet they also bring their own costs, complexities, and limitations. The decision is rarely about total replacement, but about layering technologies intelligently.

The Cost-Benefit Equation

Ultimately, the decision to barcode depends on a classic cost-benefit analysis.

Barcodes are ideal when:

The goods are high value or mission critical. The supply chain is regulated or audited. The environment is stable and labels remain intact. The system requires granular, item-level traceability.

Barcodes may be unnecessary when:

Items are low value and disposable. Goods remain within a single facility and can be tracked by bulk movement. Alternative identification systems already provide the necessary visibility.

Many organisations therefore use tiered strategies: item-level barcodes for critical components, pallet-level barcodes or RFID for bulk shipments, and no coding for low-value consumables.

The Future – Is the Barcode Dying?

Predictions of the barcode’s death have been circulating for at least 20 years. Yet like many “obsolete” technologies, it continues to thrive.

GS1, the global standards body, is already piloting a shift towards 2D barcodes and QR codes, which can hold far richer information than a traditional linear barcode. Retailers such as Walmart and Carrefour are experimenting with QR-enabled packaging that links directly to supply chain databases, providing sustainability data, recall information, or digital receipts.

In defence, NATO and national armed forces are integrating barcodes with digital backbones, ensuring codification data can flow seamlessly into asset management systems.

The likely future is not the disappearance of barcodes, but their transformation and integration with broader digital ecosystems. They will sit alongside RFID, IoT sensors, and AI recognition, forming part of a layered visibility strategy.

Conclusion – A Question of Balance

So, to barcode or not to barcode? The answer, as with most supply chain dilemmas, is “it depends.”

Barcodes remain one of the most effective, low-cost, and widely adopted tools in global logistics. They provide accuracy, traceability, and simplicity. But they are not a universal answer. For some items and environments, especially in defence or humanitarian operations, barcodes alone are insufficient.

The smart supply chain leader will not ask whether to barcode everything or nothing, but will instead ask: which items, at which levels, and under which conditions should barcoding be applied?

In Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the Prince wrestled with questions of existence. In supply chain management, the equivalent question is one of visibility. Without visibility, there is no control. Whether achieved through barcodes, RFID, or AI, the end goal remains the same: a resilient, transparent, and efficient supply chain.