Barcode scanning has grown from a supermarket checkout experiment into infrastructure for products, warehouses, hospitals, and traceability. GS1 says its barcodes are scanned more than 10 billion times each day, while more than 1 billion products carry a GS1 barcode. The figures below show how scanning supports the movement and identification of goods, and where real-world scan compliance still falls short.
Contents
- The scale of barcode use
- How retail barcodes are changing
- Data capacity and print requirements
- Warehousing and inventory technology
- Barcode scanning in hospitals
- Medication scan compliance by ward
The scale of barcode use
GS1’s 2023/24 Year in Review places the global scale of barcode activity at more than 10 billion scans per day. The same review says more than 1 billion products carry a GS1 barcode and that GS1 serves over 2 million companies globally. Its identification standards are used in more than 150 countries, and GS1 identifies more than 25 industries where those standards create efficiencies.
The network behind those standards is also geographically broad. A GS1 support article on QR adoption says there are 118 local GS1 offices around the world. That reach matters for pantry and preserving products because a single packaged item can pass through manufacturing, distribution, retail, and consumer-information systems before it reaches a kitchen shelf.
The history of retail scanning is comparatively short. GS1’s 50th anniversary material says the barcode was created on April 3, 1973. The first barcode scan at a supermarket occurred on June 26, 1974, in Ohio. GS1 describes the original barcode as having reached 50 years of adoption since that first scan. These dates mark the transition from a standard for identifying products to a system used across many parts of the supply chain.
GS1’s retail page separately says the retail barcode ecosystem supports more than 10 billion daily scans at checkout. This is a retail-specific expression of the scale also reported in the 2023/24 review, so the two figures should not be added together. They describe overlapping views of barcode activity rather than separate totals.
How retail barcodes are changing
The next retail change is a move toward 2D symbols, including QR Codes powered by GS1. GS1’s retail joint statement says more than 20 industry champions signed the 2024 global joint statement for GS1 QR Codes. The same source says these QR Codes can carry usage instructions, recycling instructions, safety data, nutritional information, and certifications.
For food and pantry products, those data types can connect a package with information beyond a basic product identifier. A nutrition panel, storage guidance, recycling direction, or certification can be associated with the same product journey. The supplied GS1 material describes the capabilities; it does not quantify how often each type of information is used by shoppers.
Healthcare examples illustrate why moving from multiple symbols to one can matter operationally. In its One Product, One Barcode report, GS1 cites a reported 40% scan failure rate in hospitals because staff abandoned the process after unsuccessful attempts. GS1 also says multiple barcodes can create confusion about which symbol to scan, reduce traceability when staff scan the wrong symbol, and make training more complicated. The report says one barcode could improve patient experience, product-recall efficiency, inventory management, and billing through a more reliable single-scan process.
These are reported findings and stated potential benefits from GS1’s report, not a universal result for every hospital or product category. They show why the quality and clarity of the symbol can be as important as the presence of a scanner.
Data capacity and print requirements
GS1’s 2D barcode information gives a useful comparison of maximum encoded character capacity.
| Symbol and content type | Maximum capacity reported by GS1 |
|---|---|
| QR Code with GS1 Digital Link, numeric | 7,089 characters |
| QR Code with GS1 Digital Link, alphanumeric | 4,296 characters |
| GS1 DataMatrix, numeric | 3,116 characters |
| GS1 DataMatrix, alphanumeric | 2,335 characters |
These are encoding capacities, not recommendations to fill every symbol with data. GS1 says the GS1 DataMatrix can encode a GTIN, batch or lot number, expiry date, and serial number. GS1 also says it is already in active production and pilot use in healthcare supply chains, provides error detection and correction to improve readability, and has greater data capacity in a smaller space than 1D barcodes.
The healthcare adoption figures are substantial but should be read as separate measures. GS1 says more than 70 countries have regulatory requirements aligned with GS1 DataMatrix in healthcare. A separate GS1 2D barcodes in healthcare source says more than 75 countries use GS1 DataMatrix to meet medicines traceability or unique device identification requirements. The difference in wording and count means these figures should not be treated as interchangeable totals.
Physical production settings also influence scanning. GS1’s 2D Barcodes at Retail POS guideline says 2D barcode X-dimensions need to be about 50% larger than linear barcode equivalents for retail readability, and specifies that 2D X-dimensions are set at 1.5 times the linear barcode X-dimension. The same guideline lists common retail point-of-sale printer and printhead configurations of 203 dpi, 300 dpi, 600 dpi, and 406 dpi. It identifies 2-, 4-, 5-, and 6-inch widths as the most popular thermal printhead widths for retail POS.
For packaged foods, these details connect the abstract idea of a scannable code to label design, printer selection, and the available space on a container. A symbol can encode more information than a traditional linear barcode, but its physical dimensions and print quality still affect whether a scanner can read it.
Warehousing and inventory technology
The Zebra 2024 Global Shopper Study included over 4,200 respondents. In that study, 84% of retail associates were concerned about loss prevention, and eight in 10 were concerned about a lack of technology to spot safety threats or criminal activity. These figures describe associate concerns, not measured rates of theft or incidents.
Zebra’s Warehousing Vision Study found that 73% of decision makers had or planned to accelerate modernization timelines. The study also found that 86% of associates said warehouse technologies, robotics, and devices would help attract and retain workers. Meanwhile, 69% of decision makers had or were planning to automate workflows by 2024. The date is part of the study’s forward-looking framing, so these statements are plans or intentions rather than a claim that all projects were completed.
The same Zebra study projected that average North American warehouse square footage would increase by 26% over five years. In Europe, 49% of decision makers identified outbound packing, staging, and loading as a challenge. In one regional segment, 94% of respondents planned or had implemented trailer-load optimization or load-compliance solutions by 2024. Zebra’s 2024 Warehousing Vision Study press release also said 60% of respondents cited mobile barcode-label or thermal printers as a key investment area.
Together, the figures point to scanning as one part of a broader warehouse technology stack. Label printers, mobile devices, workflow automation, and load-compliance tools all affect whether product identity remains usable as goods move through storage and dispatch. The sources measure different populations and outcomes, so they should not be combined into one modernization rate.
Two equipment manufacturers reported different 2024 financial profiles. Zebra reported full-year revenue of $4,981 million, up 8.7% year over year, and free cash flow of $954 million. Its EVM segment recorded $3,176 million in net sales, up 13.0% from $2,811 million, while its AIT segment recorded $1,805 million, down 0.4% from $1,811 million. Datalogic reported 2024 revenue of €493.8 million, down 4.8% from the prior year. Its fourth-quarter revenue was €127.4 million, up 10.5% year over year, with adjusted EBITDA of €16.7 million and a 13.1% margin. These company figures are financial measures, not direct measures of barcode scan volume.
Barcode scanning in hospitals
Zebra’s 2024 hospital vision study found that 84% of hospital leaders in the United States and United Kingdom prioritized digitized inventory-tracking systems. The study reported that 68% planned to deploy RFID within five years and 69% planned to deploy real-time location systems within five years. Eight in 10 hospital leaders believed real-time location tracking was essential to optimal patient care.
The study also found that four in 10 hospital leaders viewed manual cycle counting, lack of real-time recording, and replenishment as their toughest workflows. These findings concern hospital leaders’ priorities and perceived workflow difficulty. They do not establish that RFID or real-time location systems replace barcode scanning; rather, they show that scanning sits within a wider effort to make inventory and location data more timely.
A peer-reviewed barcode medication administration study available through PMC provides a closer look at actual scan compliance. The study analyzed 613,868 medication administrations across five wards. It recorded medication-scan compliance, patient-scan compliance, and reasons why medications were not scanned. The ward-level results show wide variation, which is important when interpreting any single headline percentage.
Medication scan compliance by ward
The study’s five wards handled different numbers of medication administrations and reported different compliance rates.
| Ward | Medication administrations | Medication scan compliance | Patient scan compliance |
|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | 246,087 | 5.6% | 4.6% |
| N1 | 109,213 | 44.2% | 66.0% |
| N5 | 102,592 | 7.0% | 12.0% |
| W2 | 34,909 | 67.0% | 89.0% |
| W4 | 121,067 | 45.0% | 61.0% |
The highest reported medication-scan compliance was 67.0% in W2, while A1 reported 5.6% and N5 reported 7.0%. Patient-scan compliance was also highest in W2 at 89.0% and lowest in A1 at 4.6%. Because ward volumes differed, the table should be used to compare the reported ward results rather than to calculate an unsupported overall rate.
Unreadable barcodes were a major reported reason for non-scanned medications, but the share varied by ward. Barcode unreadability accounted for 25% of non-scanned medications in A1, 75% in N1, 44% in N5, 67% in W2, and 57% in W4. “Scanner broken” accounted for 6% in A1, 5% in N1, 3% in N5, 3% in W2, and 20% in W4.
The study also reported differences by medication form. In A1, tablets had an odds ratio of 4.52 for successful scanning versus liquids, and capsules had an odds ratio of 3.27 versus liquids. In W2, inhalers had an odds ratio of 0.04 for successful scanning. In A1, ointments had an odds ratio of 0.2. These odds ratios compare the reported forms within the study; they are not percentages and should not be read as probabilities of success.
Across the study, 37% of scanning alerts led to a change in user action. In ward A1, medication and patient scanning rates declined from around 25% at implementation to around 5% by July 2020. That time point is specific to the study and should not be presented as a current global compliance rate.
For anyone handling packaged pantry goods, the practical lesson is measurable but limited: identification systems depend on readable symbols, suitable equipment, clear workflows, and consistent use. The retail figures show extraordinary scale, while the hospital results show why scan quality and process design remain important after a barcode has been printed.