Arttu Hietikko-Kaukola 

Material Handling Industry Review 

Current state, trends, and the future 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
  

Vaasa 2021 

School of Technology and Innovation 
Master’s Thesis in Industrial Management  

Master of Science in Economics and Business Administration 



2 

UNIVERSITY OF VAASA 
School of Technology and Innovation  
Author:    Arttu Hietikko-Kaukola 
Title of the Thesis:  Material Handling Industry Review: Current state, trends, and the future 
Degree:    Master of Science in Economics and Business Administration 
Programme:   Industrial Management 
Supervisor:   Petri Helo 
Year:    2021         Number of pages: 80 

ABSTRACT: 
The material handling industry has developed significantly over the decades due to constant 
progress in material handling technologies. The importance of material handling for organiza-
tions is pointed out by the fact that it includes all movement of material within production en-
vironments. Sufficient implementation of material handling can have several positive impacts 
for organizations and especially in terms of overall efficiency. 
 
This thesis discusses the state and advancements of the material handling industry locally in 
Suupohja region, regionally in Finland and also globally in the worldwide markets. The thesis was 
commissioned for the needs of several Suupohja region’s material handling companies in 2021 
with the aim of getting a good overall picture about the status of the industry. The idea is to find 
out who are the key players in the industry, what kind of products they manufacture and how 
they are doing based on their financial figures, which were gathered from Asiakastieto.fi. Espe-
cially the Finnish material handling companies are studied thoroughly and the results about how 
they are doing are presented in table and figure form. The thesis also aims to discover what are 
the most common and most used technologies and equipment in the industry now and in the 
future with the findings being showcased in the literature review section. The goal is also to find 
out how substantial the material handling market is overall and how it is spread out globally. 
The thesis also includes a questionnaire about the state of the industry, which was conducted 
for several Finnish companies working in the industry and is presented in the results section of 
the thesis.  
 
The thesis is conducted by combining both qualitative and quantitative research methods in ad-
dition to a theoretical approach. The findings of the thesis reveal that new forces of technology 
are taking material handling industry by storm. Organizations are aiming to implement many of 
the Industry 4.0 practices into their operation, which can be seen from the adoption rates of the 
different technologies that are presented in the literature review. Automatic or semi-automatic 
material handling methods are taking over the traditional manual operations and methods while 
also providing a competitive edge. Overall, the material handling industry is expected to have a 
steady growth in the upcoming years globally with the Asia Pacific region being the leading force 
in the industry.  
 

KEYWORDS: material handling, material handling companies, material handling equipment, 
material handling industry, industry 4.0 

 
  



3 

VAASAN YLIOPISTO 
Tekniikan ja innovaatiojohtamisen akateeminen yksikkö  
Tekijä:    Arttu Hietikko-Kaukola 
Tutkielman nimi:  Materiaalinkäsittelyalan katsaus: Nykytila, kehitys ja tulevaisuus 
Tutkinto:    Kauppatieteiden maisteri 
Oppiaine:   Tuotantotalous 
Työn ohjaaja:   Petri Helo 
Valmistumisvuosi:  2021         Sivumäärä: 80 

TIIVISTELMÄ: 
Materiaalinkäsittelyala on kehittynyt huomattavasti vuosikymmenten saatossa erityisesti mate-
riaalinkäsittelyteknologioiden jatkuvan kehityksen johdosta. Materiaalinkäsittelyn tärkeyttä yri-
tyksille korostaa se, että termi sisältää kaiken materiaalin kuljettamisen tuotantotilojen sisällä. 
Materiaalinkäsittelyn riittävällä käyttöönotolla ja toimeenpanolla voi olla useita positiivisia vai-
kutuksia yrityksille erityisesti yleisen tehokkuuden suhteen. 
 
Tämä tutkielma tarkastelee materiaalinkäsittelyalan tilaa ja kehitystä paikallisesti Suupohjan 
seudulla, alueellisesti Suomessa ja globaalisti kansainvälisillä markkinoilla. Tutkielma toteutet-
tiin toimeksiantona useiden Suupohjan seudun materiaalinkäsittelyalan yritysten tarpeisiin 
vuonna 2021, päätarkoituksena saada selvä kokonaiskuva alan tilanteesta. Tutkielman tarkoi-
tuksena on selvittää ketkä ovat alan suurimpia toimijoita, minkälaisia tuotteita he valmistavat ja 
miten he ovat pärjänneet Asiakastieto.fi sivustolta kerättyjen taloudellisten lukujen perusteella. 
Tutkielmassa tutkitaan erityisesti suomalaisia materiaalinkäsittelyalan yrityksiä ja niiden suoriu-
tumista kuvataan lukujen muodossa taulukoissa ja kuvioissa. Tutkielman tavoitteena on myös 
kirjallisuuskatsauksessa selvittää, mitkä ovat yleisimmät ja suosituimmat alalla käytettävät tek-
nologiat ja laitteet nyt ja tulevaisuudessa. Tutkielma pyrkii lisäksi selvittämään, miten huomat-
tava materiaalinkäsittelyala on kokonaisuudessaan ja miten se on levinnyt maailmanlaajuisesti. 
Tutkielmaan kuuluu myös kyselylomake alan tilaan liittyen, joka toteutettiin useille suomalaisille 
materiaalinkäsittelyn parissa työskenteleville yrityksille ja joka esitetään tutkielman tuloksissa.   
 
Tutkielma on toteutettu yhdistämällä laadullisia ja määrällisiä tutkimusmenetelmiä teoreettisen 
lähestymistavan lisäksi. Tutkielman tuloksista käy ilmi, että uudet teknologiat valtaavat jatku-
vasti suurempaa osuutta materiaalinkäsittelyalasta. Yritykset pyrkivät lisäämään Teollisuus 4.0 
käsitteen käytäntöjä omassa toiminnassaan, joka on nähtävissä kirjallisuuskatsauksessa esitet-
tävien teknologioiden käytön levinneisyydestä. Automaattiset ja puoliautomaattiset materiaa-
linkäsittelymenetelmät ovat ottamassa perinteisten manuaalisten menetelmien paikan ja tar-
joavat samalla kilpailuetua. Kaiken kaikkiaan materiaalinkäsittelyalan odotetaan kasvavan tasai-
sesti globaalista näkökulmasta tulevina vuosina Aasian ja Tyynenmeren alueen yritysten toi-
miessa alan johtavana voimana.  
 

AVAINSANAT: materiaalinkäsittely, materiaalinkäsittelyala, materiaalinkäsittelylaitteet, ma-
teriaalinkäsittelyalan yritykset, teollisuus 4.0 

  



4 

Table of contents 

1 Introduction 7 

1.1 Background 7 

1.2 Scope and objectives of the study 7 

1.3 Structure of the thesis 8 

2 Literature review 11 

2.1 Material handling 11 

2.2 Material handling equipment 14 

2.3 Effects of industrial revolutions on material handling 18 

2.4 Material handling trends and technologies 23 

2.5 Material handling market 30 

3 Methods 35 

4 Results 36 

4.1 Companies and competition in the industry 36 

4.2 Worldwide companies 38 

4.3 Finnish companies 41 

4.3.1 Revenue, RPP and number of personnel in each company 41 

4.3.2 Companies with the best and worst success 52 

4.3.3 Products and customers of the companies 56 

4.3.4 Summary 62 

4.3.5 Suupohja companies 66 

4.4 Questionnaire results 68 

5 Conclusions 74 

  



5 

Figures 
 
Figure 1. Main structure of the thesis. 9 

Figure 2. The concept of material management (Bhat, 2009). 14 

Figure 3. EP16-20A(C)N Electric Forklift (CAT Lift Trucks, 2021). 15 

Figure 4. Motorized roller conveyor by elcom (elcom, 2021). 16 

Figure 5. Pallet stacking AGV by Dematic (Dematic, 2018). 17 

Figure 6. The industrial revolutions to date (Spectral Engines, 2018). 19 

Figure 7. The technological pillars of Industry 4.0 (Saturno et al., 2017). 20 

Figure 8. The differences between the first stage of generation automation and Industry 

4.0 (ABI Research, 2019). 21 

Figure 9. Three core elements of wider purpose in Industry 5.0 (Breque et al., 2021). 22 

Figure 10. Technologies seen as disruptive forces or competitive advantages in the next 

10 years (MHI, 2020). 25 

Figure 11. Adoption rates of different technologies (MHI, 2021). 27 

Figure 12. Investments towards different products and services in the next three years 

(MHI, 2021). 29 

Figure 13. Market segmentation of material handling equipment market (Market 

Research Future, 2021). 31 

Figure 14. Market share of each equipment type (Fortune Business Insights, 2020). 32 

Figure 15. Material handling firms' economic impact in the US, 2018 (MHI, 2019). 33 

Figure 16. Share of sectors impacted by material handling jobs (MHI, 2019). 34 

Figure 17. Revenue of TOP20 material handling companies worldwide. 39 

Figure 18. Location of the headquarters of TOP20 material handling companies 

worldwide. 40 

Figure 19. Finnish material handling companies with over 50MEUR revenue. 42 

Figure 20. Finnish material handling companies with 10-50MEUR revenue. 45 

Figure 21. Finnish material handling companies with 2-10MEUR revenue. 47 

Figure 22. Finnish material handling companies with 1-2MEUR revenue. 49 

Figure 23. Finnish material handling companies with 0-1MEUR revenue. 51 

Figure 24. Main products of the Finnish material handling companies. 57 



6 

Figure 25. Material types that are transported with the companies' products. 59 

Figure 26. Customer references of Finnish material handling companies. 60 

Figure 27. Total revenues of the companies during 2015-2019. 63 

Figure 28. Total operating incomes of the companies during 2015-2019. 65 

Figure 29. Total number of personnel in Finnish material handling companies. 66 

Figure 30. Wider Suupohja region material handling companies. 67 

 
 
Tables 
 
Table 1. Example table representing the way in which the information was gathered for 

each Finnish company. 38 

Table 2. Development of revenue and operating income in TOP30 companies based on            

revenue. 53 

Table 3. Companies with the biggest growth in revenue and operating income. 55 

Table 4. Companies with the smallest growth in revenue and operating income. 56 

Table 5. Summary of average revenue increase in percentage. 64 

 

 
Abbreviations 
 
AGV  Automated Guided Vehicle 
AI  Artificial Intelligence 
AR  Augmented Reality 
CAGR  Compound Annual Growth Rate 
CO2  Carbon dioxide 
CPS  Cyper-Physical System 
ERP  Enterprise Resource Planning 
GDP  Gross Domestic Product 
IoT  Internet of Things 
MHI  Material Handling Industry 
PLC  Programmable Logic Controller 
QR code Quick Response code 
R&D  Research and Development 
RFID  Radio Frequency Identification 
RPP  Revenue per Person 
VR  Virtual Reality 

  



7 

1 Introduction 

The main purpose of this thesis is to highlight the importance of material handling func-

tions, the equipment that are used in material handling and how the industry is doing in 

general on a global scale and even more specifically in Finland. This thesis was commis-

sioned for several Suupohja region material handling companies during 2021. Similar, 

smaller research has been conducted earlier in 2009. The background, scope and objec-

tives of the study and the structure of the thesis are further discussed below. 

 

1.1 Background 

Material handling has an important role in logistics and manufacturing functions of each 

organization as it includes all the material movements in a production environment. It is 

a widely researched topic and an industry that is closely followed by associations such 

as MHI.org, which promotes the industry at a large scale and provides up-to-date infor-

mation regarding the advancements, trends and competitive forces in the industry. The 

technologies in terms of material handling are constantly evolving and changing the in-

dustry as a whole. 

 

1.2 Scope and objectives of the study 

The aim of this thesis is to provide a review on the material handling industry for the 

case companies’ needs. The goal is to find out what is happening in the industry locally 

in Suupohja region, regionally in Finland and globally in worldwide markets. One of the 

main focuses is to introduce the companies working in the material handling industry 

and determine how they have been doing based on financial numbers such as revenue 

and operating income. Material handling equipment, technologies and manufactured 

products are also showcased. The overall goal is to provide an outlook on the past, pre-

sent and the future of the material handling industry. The research questions of the the-

sis are 1) How big is the material handling market and how is it spread globally? 2) Who 

are the key players in the industry, what kind of products they manufacture and how 



8 

they have been doing based on their financial figures? 3) What are the equipment and 

technologies used in the industry now and in the future? 4) What should the Suupohja 

region companies do to remain competitive in the industry?  

 

The industry in general, material handling markets, and technologies are researched on 

a worldwide basis and are presented in the second section of the study. The results part 

focuses mainly on the companies working in the industry and determining how they 

have been doing in the last few years. TOP20 material handling companies worldwide 

are showcased, but closer attention is paid to the Finnish companies. In the study all the 

data of the companies was gathered into an Excel spreadsheet and the results are show-

cased in table and figure form in the study. In the spreadsheet, information such as rev-

enue, revenue growth percentage, number of personnel, RPP, operating income, oper-

ating income growth percentage and location of the company’s headquarters are pre-

sented. The spreadsheet was also sent to all the Suupohja companies participating in the 

study. A questionnaire related to the industry was also conducted and sent to some of 

the Finnish material handling companies. The answers were gathered via telephone in-

terviews and a summary of them is presented in the results section of the study.  

 

During the writing process two workshop meetings were organized to determine the 

goals and objectives for the study together with some of the case companies and other 

participants of the research group. The point of the discussion was also to get other 

points of view for the purpose of the study and what is wanted to be achieved in the 

research. The findings of the study were presented in the workshop meetings and the 

company list of the Finnish actors in the industry was approved by the participants. 

 

1.3 Structure of the thesis 

This thesis is constructed of five main sections which are presented in Figure 1. The goal 

is to provide systematic research on the topic. The first section provides an introduction 

on the research topic in general. Background information for the thesis is described and 

the case companies are introduced in a suitable manner. The research questions and 



9 

objectives that the thesis tries to answer and solve are presented. Scope of the study, 

data collection methods and the way of result presentation are also described. 

 

 

Figure 1. Main structure of the thesis. 

 

The second section provides the literature review on the topic. This section helps the 

reader to get a better idea about the topic that is researched by explaining the terms 

and concepts that are discussed later in the thesis as well. Some of the research ques-

tions are answered in this section as the information regarding the state of the industry, 

technologies and markets are already available and cannot be presented as the writer’s 

own results. The section is divided into several subsections to keep the framework clear 

and to help the reader in understanding the context and importance of each individual 

section. The subsections focus on material handling as a term, the technologies in ma-

terial handling in 2020’s and material handling markets in general. Different types of ma-

terial handling equipment are also presented as mechanical, half-automatic and auto-

matic material handling equipment are all talked about separately.  

 

The third section focuses on the research methods and methodology that are used in 

the thesis to answer the research questions. The data collection methods and analyzing 

tools are introduced and the reasoning for choosing the specific approaches are 



10 

explained. Attention is also paid to the degree in which the research can be considered 

trustworthy and legitimate.  

 

The fourth section presents the results to the research questions and objectives that 

were not yet answered in the literature review. These are mainly the financial figures of 

the companies worldwide and especially in Finland, which are used to determine how 

the companies and industry have been doing. Finnish companies are put into several 

ranges based on their revenue and best and worst performers are brought up. The sum-

mary part concludes the results of the companies in general. Main products, most com-

mon material types that the products transport and customer references of some of the 

companies are also presented. The results of the questionnaire conducted for a few of 

the Finnish material companies are also presented in this section.   

 

The final section concludes the findings of the study and presents them in a summarized 

form, from which the main points can be found easily. The idea is that by having a look 

at the concluding section, the reader is able to get an idea about what was achieved in 

the research. Suggestions for the companies to remain competitive in the industry are 

presented, as well as future research possibilities. 



11 

2 Literature review 

The literature review section tries to elaborate on the theoretical framework of the study 

and provides an explanation to most of the terms and concepts that are needed to get a 

better understanding about the topic and the goals of the study in general. Material han-

dling, material management and all of the industrial revolutions are discussed. Material 

handling equipment, trends and technologies, as well as the material handling market 

are also gone through in the subsections.  

 

2.1 Material handling 

Simply put, material handling can be described as the packing, moving, and unloading 

of materials. There are various kinds of material handling equipment that can be used to 

perform material handling activities safely, although this study focuses on the usage and 

types of material handling that are used in an industrial environment. Material handling 

is needed in every type of industry that contains some sort of construction or manufac-

turing work. In this type of work the material needs to be handled in different stages of 

the supply chain from start to finish. Material can also be handled in different kinds of 

forms, such as in a raw material form, as an intermediate good or as a finalized product.  

(Ray, 2008) 

 

According to Stephens and Meyers (2013), material handling can be described as the 

process of getting the correct materials to the right location, at the right time and in the 

right number within a production environment. The material also has to be in the right 

state and condition in order to reduce costs of manufacturing. By improving the flow of 

material with the help of material handling equipment, companies are able to cut their 

production costs considerably. Thanks to the continuously advancing equipment, a lot of 

industrial problems can be eliminated and the need for humans to perform tasks involv-

ing physical drudgery are also diminishing. No other area in industrial history has seen 

more advancement than the use of material processing and handling equipment. This 

has been helped by the fact that these days material handling systems can effectively be 



12 

integrated with cutting-edge technology for example in automated inspection systems 

and in automated data collection equipment. (Stephens & Meyers, 2013)  

 

The goal of efficient material handling is to support production processes and help them 

run smoothly. Material handling also causes expenses for a company, which is why the 

need for it should be minimized as much as possible. Material handling in itself is not 

part of the production process, as it does not contribute to the product’s worth. The 

need for material handling and the material handling type that is used should be delib-

erately planned to suit the needed application. Many factors, such as the weight, quan-

tity and throughput of material have an effect on which material handling method 

should be used. Manual material handling can be costly, which is why automated solu-

tions have become very popular. (Ray, 2008) Although material can be moved with dif-

ferent kind of methods, the material handling process also involves various storing op-

tions.  The possibilities for viable solutions are endless and the correct solution should 

be determined by weighing the costs of the several options. To point out the importance 

of safety in material handling, it has been estimated that the handling of materials is 

responsible for over half of all industrial accidents. The importance of cutting the mate-

rial handling costs is also emphasized by the fact that material handling generates about 

50 percent of a company’s overall operating expenses on average and depending on the 

specific industry the number can be even higher. (Stephens & Meyers, 2013) The differ-

ent types of material handling methods and equipment are introduced in subsection 2.2.  

 

When looking at the bigger concept of material management, the objectives can be di-

vided into two separate categories, which are the primary (direct) objectives and sec-

ondary (indirect) objectives. Primary objectives normally lead to the completion of any 

of the other company’s overall objectives, whereas secondary objectives occur as a re-

sult of the materials department supporting other departments in the company. The 

primary objectives are concerned with reaching, for example, high inventory turnover, 

low prices and salary costs, consistent quality, and fond relations with the suppliers. On 

the other hand, secondary objectives include factors such as standardization, price 



13 

forecasting and the improvement of existing products as well as creating entirely new 

products and materials. (Bhat, 2009) These are mostly the same as to what can be 

achieved with well-designed material handling systems. Like every other solution, mate-

rial handling also has the same negative aspects, such as relatively high capital costs, 

restricted flexibility after implementation, the need for maintenance and the stoppages 

to the entire production system if an integrated material handling system has a failure.  

(Ray, 2008) 

 

The overall scope of material management includes several different activities such as 

planning, procuring, controlling, storing, handling, distribution and transportation con-

trol. In the planning activity, the idea is to find out which material is needed in which 

location and to schedule the purchasing of that material, which is then performed in the 

procuring phase. Controlling aims to make sure that the agreed schedules are adhered 

and needed data is gathered throughout the process, whereas storing includes the in-

spection, handling and warehousing of incoming and finished goods. The handling activ-

ity involves packaging and moving the materials to the correct destination, and the dis-

tribution activity takes care of the finished products by either warehousing, packing or 

by sending them to the customer. The final activity is the transportation control, which 

is very important as it takes care of the commodity rates, routing standards, carrier se-

lections and dispatching of shipments. The overall material management concept is 

shown in Figure 2. (Bhat, 2009) 

  



14 

 

Figure 2. The concept of material management (Bhat, 2009). 

 

2.2 Material handling equipment 

This subsection focuses on introducing different types and variations of material han-

dling equipment. The selection of the most appropriate material handling equipment is 

essential for each organization as it is a way of getting rid of drudgery work and reducing 

production costs. In total, the material handling equipment list has over 500 different 

equipment types and as there are also several kinds of sizes, models and brands, the 

total number of material handling equipment to choose from is several thousands. Care-

ful cost comparison between the different material handling equipment is needed to 

choose the best available option for an organizations’ needs. (Stephens & Meyers, 2013) 

 

Material handling equipment can be generally classified into three separate categories 

based on the way in which they function. These categories are mechanical, semi-auto-

matic and automatic material handling. Mechanical material handling is traditionally un-

derstood as material handling performed with the help of personnel labour and possible 

work machinery. In this case automation is used only to some extent or not at all. Me-

chanical material handling equipment includes all sorts of pallet jacks, stacking wagons, 



15 

forklifts, conveyors, carriers and bridge cranes. Forklift is the most common material 

handling equipment due to its flexible working characteristics. Forklifts can handle both 

vertical and horizontal lifts and the availability of several grabbing attachments allows 

lifting materials in various shapes, although it is best suited for lifting parcelled goods. 

Forklifts are also fairly inexpensive, and their lifting capacities are versatile. The biggest 

restrictions regarding forklifts are that they require even floor surface and can be inef-

fective in transporting bulk material. (Hokkanen, Karhunen, & Luukkainen, 2011) An 

electric forklift by Caterpillar is presented in Figure 3. 

 

 

Figure 3. EP16-20A(C)N Electric Forklift (CAT Lift Trucks, 2021). 

 

Conveyors are normally electric motor-powered devices with a separate load transfer 

body, and they have a frame of the length of the transportation route. Generally, con-

veyors have a fixed structure, and they can be either vertical, ascending or descending 

based on the location where they are installed. Conveyors allow effective material han-

dling due to their speed and the capability of installing them to either the roof, wall or 

floor. It is a good option when large amounts of material need to be transferred from a 

fixed point to another or between different floors. The drawbacks with conveyors are 

that they cannot be easily modified after installation, which is why careful forward plan-

ning is required to avoid extra costs. The safety aspects of conveyors are also not as good 

as with many of the other material handling equipment and extra attention needs to be 

paid when working near them. The most important types of conveyors are belt, slat, 



16 

chain, roll and pneumatic conveyors and elevators. Spiral and vibratory conveyors are 

also well suited for handling fine-grained material in large quantities. Other equipment 

that can be categorized under the mechanical material handling equipment are various 

types of bridge cranes, boom cranes, roller paths and freight elevators. (Hokkanen et al., 

2011) Figure 4 shows a motorized roller conveyor. 

 

 

Figure 4. Motorized roller conveyor by elcom (elcom, 2021). 

 

The most common semi-automatic or automatic material handling equipment are ro-

botics, AGVs, automatic sorting and paternoster elevators. AGVs are very similar to the 

traditional mechanized system with the exception that no forklift operator is needed. 

They are able to move independently through a specific path by following magnetic 

strips or induction cabling embedded in the floor. The latter option is a good choice only 

when the runway will stay the same throughout its operation as it is hard to make mod-

ifications to the embedded cabling. AGV operation can also be carried out by either laser 

control or magnetic points, which is called free location determination. In this case the 

available route map is fed to the vehicle, and it is able to determine its location due to 

the steering angles and the rotation speed of its wheels. This type of location determi-

nation can be inaccurate to some extent, which is why a “repair system” is normally 

needed. It can be implemented by either combining laser control and mirror reflectors 

or installing a magnetic network to the floor and detectors to the vehicles that notice 

when each magnet is passed. Pick-to-AGV is a common term in semi-automatic material 

handling, and it means that a worker collects items for the AGVs that transport them to 



17 

the next destination. (Hokkanen et al., 2011) Figure 5 shows a pallet stacking AGV by 

Dematic. 

 

 

Figure 5. Pallet stacking AGV by Dematic (Dematic, 2018). 

 

The most common uses of robotics in logistic applications related to material handling 

are equipment like automatic packing machines and automatic load dischargers. These 

types of solutions can be programmed to have various trajectories and functions and 

their biggest benefits are precision, speed and independence. In material handling, sev-

eral procedures are needed and the differences in the size and shape of the material can 

be large, which can be challenging. Automated Storing/Retrieving Systems (AS/RS) and 

shelving houses are also popular solutions as they help organizations in reaching higher 

efficiency and reducing labour costs. These fully automated warehouses are computer-

controlled and have precise identification technology for the stored material and the 

shelving and collecting is performed with automated shelf carriages. (Hokkanen et al., 

2011) 

 

The total amount of material handling equipment and the types that are used is massive, 

which is why it is hard to mention all of them or go into detail about their design and 

capabilities. Because of this, material handling equipment are often classified into some 

of the basic types of equipment. Ray (2008) categorizes material handling equipment 



18 

into the seven different categories introduced below. A few examples of each category 

are written inside the brackets. 

 

• Industrial vehicles/trucks (forklift, hand truck, lift table) 

• Conveyors (chain, roller, pneumatic) 

• Hoists, elevators and cranes (winch, bucket elevator, bridge crane) 

• Bulk and miscellaneous handling equipment (ship loader, excavator, stacker) 

• Robotic handling systems (packing machine, loading machine) 

• Containers and supports (shipping container, liquid container, pallet) 

• Auxiliary equipment (crane and forklift attachments, positioner) 

 

2.3 Effects of industrial revolutions on material handling 

The material handling systems of today are still significantly impacted by the advance-

ments in automation technology all the way from the 1970s, when most systems were 

able to be used only in manual operation. Automated material handling systems and 

their quality, productivity and reliability developed significantly in the last thirty years 

and when talking about the overall material handling process, the decision-making is 

often being spread across many systems, such as ERP and warehouse management sys-

tems. Because of this, the need for reliable, adjustable, responsive and easily adaptable 

systems that are able to comply with constantly changing demands and processes is con-

tinuously growing. The importance of factors such as scalability, resource efficiency, 

safety, reconfigurability and self-adaptability are also pointed out when talking about the 

desirable attributes for material handling systems of the future. (Furmans, Seibold, & 

Trenkle, 2018) 

 

In total, there are four industrial revolutions that have been witnessed over the years. 

These different industrial revolutions and their characteristics are presented in Figure 6.  

(Spectral Engines, 2018) The first industrial revolution lasted from the end of the 18th to 

the beginning of the 19th century with the most significant changes occurring as a result 



19 

of mechanization. This led to agriculture beginning to be displaced as the backbone of 

society economy and the invention of the steam engine led to the possibility of produc-

ing new sort of energy. The second industrial revolution began at the end of the 19th 

century and is often considered as the most significant one of the revolutions because 

of the several inventions that were made. Major technical breakthroughs aided the de-

velopment of new sources of energy, such as oil, gas and electricity. Inventions like the 

internal combustion engine, chemical synthesis and communication methods such as 

telephone were all discovered during the second industrial revolution. The third indus-

trial revolution occurred at the second half of the 20th century and introduced another 

new energy source in nuclear energy. Telecommunications, electronics and computers 

all arose during the third revolution as well. The level of automation started to rise in 

general due to two significant innovations in PLCs and robots. (institute of 

Entrepreneurship Development, 2019)  

 

 

Figure 6. The industrial revolutions to date (Spectral Engines, 2018). 

 

The fourth industrial revolution, which is also known by the term Industry 4.0 was first 

introduced in Germany in 2011. Industry 4.0 has started to gain increasing interest in 

material handling over the decade and companies are in increasing manner trying to 

implement the practices of it. Industry 4.0 consists of characteristics such as automation, 

adaption, digitalization, customization and optimization, which are crucial when aiming 

to achieve higher levels of productivity and operational efficiency. The main goal behind 



20 

utilizing Industry 4.0 practices is the need for building manufacturing facilities that are 

“smart”, capable of adapting to needed changes and able to use resources effectively, as 

well as to be able to function at a high level of autonomy with minimal need for human 

interference. Logistics are no longer just the physical activity of delivering goods to the 

correct destination in the right condition and quantity, as nowadays topics related to IoT 

are closely linked to it and are taken advantage of more effectively. (Efthymiou & Ponis, 

2019) Figure 7 presents the most important technologies that are according to Saturno, 

Pertel and Deschamps (2017) required to properly execute Industry 4.0 practices. The 

authors also mention that these technologies should fulfil the requirements that are de-

rived also from current architectures’ functionality. The requirements are needed to pro-

vide system flexibility, consistency and connectivity between different systems. When 

correctly implemented, Industry 4.0 can bring increased robustness and compliance with 

high quality standards related to the phases of production, such as planning, engineering, 

manufacturing and logistics. (Saturno, Pertel, & Deschamps, 2017) 

 

 

Figure 7. The technological pillars of Industry 4.0 (Saturno et al., 2017). 

 

The industrial and manufacturing sectors pursuit for automation has been a well-known 

fact for quite a while as companies are trying to develop systems and technologies that 



21 

increase productivity, cut down human error and are able to create a positive return on 

investment. From a historical point of view automation has required long deployment 

times, large capital investments and system integrators. This has led to problems with 

launching new products as the factories are often not as adaptable or configurable as 

the manufactured products. Transformation towards Industry 4.0 requires finding the 

correct tools at the correct time and place and utilizing them in the best possible way for 

the needs of the organization. The biggest difference in Industry 4.0 philosophy is that 

everything is data-driven and digitally enabled. These differences between the 1st gen-

eration of automation and Industry 4.0 are further showcased in Figure 8. (ABI Research, 

2019) 

 

 

Figure 8. The differences between the first stage of generation automation and Industry 4.0 
(ABI Research, 2019). 

 

Industry 5.0 is a fairly new concept that was first introduced in the beginning of 2020’s 

and has been studied especially by the European Commission. The concept derives from 

the principles of Industry 4.0 and emphasizes the importance of innovation and research 

in assisting industries in providing long-term service to mankind within planetary limita-

tions. The main idea is to shift away from focusing only on profit-driven production of 

goods or services. The wellbeing of workers is also put into the centre of manufacturing 



22 

processes and new technologies are used to provide prosperity beyond jobs and growth 

while preserving the environment. The goals of Industry 5.0 can be described by the 

wider purpose elements presented in Figure 9. (Breque, De Nul, & Petridis, 2021) 

 

 

Figure 9. Three core elements of wider purpose in Industry 5.0 (Breque et al., 2021). 

 

Human-centric approach focuses on human needs at the centre of the manufacturing 

process. The approach wants to find out what new technologies are able to do for us 

rather than focusing on what we can do with the new technology. Manufacturing pro-

cesses are also being adapted for the workers by the use of technology rather than telling 

the workers to adapt their skills for the needs of the technology. Human-centric ap-

proach also tries to ensure that the use of new sorts of technology does not jeopardize 

the rights of the worker, such as human dignity and privacy. Sustainability element tries 

to create processes that allow natural resources to be recycled, re-used and re-purposed 

to reduce environmental effects and waste. This is done, for example, by lowering energy 

consumption and greenhouse gases while taking into account the needs of current and 

future generations. The goals of sustainability will be highly affected by technologies that 

can help with improving resource efficiency and reducing waste, such as additive manu-

facturing and AI. The last element is resilience, which focuses on the necessity of improv-

ing robustness in industrial manufacturing by equipping it against interruptions and en-

suring that it can support vital infrastructure during a crisis situation. These sorts of crisis 



23 

situations highlight the vulnerability of the existing approaches to globalised manufac-

turing, and they can be, for example, a natural disaster or a pandemic like the COVID-19.  

(Breque et al., 2021) 

 

2.4 Material handling trends and technologies 

In terms of material handling trends and technologies, the technological pillars of Indus-

try 4.0 are the methods that material handling companies are utilizing the most at the 

moment. The term Industry 4.0 was already explained earlier and as the definition is so 

broad, this subsection focuses on pointing out some of the most important and most 

used methods of it in terms of material handling. The technologies, material handling 

solutions and key machines are also further discussed in the questionnaire part of the 

thesis in section 4.4 answered by companies working in the industry.  

 

Digitalization and automation are the main terms influencing the material handling of 

today, basically working as a hypernym for most of the practices and being heavily linked 

to Industry 4.0 practices. According to Efthymiou and Ponis (2019), Industry 4.0 methods 

are having a big effect on material handling and logistics in general by being able to in-

tegrate technologies into linking devices and processes together. This helps with improv-

ing solutions related to efficiency, operational and profitability solutions. By creating so-

lutions that make certain services of products “smart”, companies are able to reduce 

human intervention in their workflow and freeing humans from unnecessary work. The 

IoT technologies allow different areas of material handling to be developed and helps 

with solving problems that traditional supply chains face frequently.  (Efthymiou & Ponis, 

2019) 

 

Most of the Industry 4.0 practices will transform material handling industry in the future 

one way or another, and even the smart manufacturing systems of today rely on intelli-

gent devices and machinery. According to Tjahjono, Esplugues, Ares, & Pelaez (2017), 

technologies such as VR, AR, 3D-Printing and simulation have several positive effects on 

logistics and material handling in general. On the other hand, technologies like cloud 



24 

computing, Big Data Analytics, cybersecurity, RFID and robotics were seen as having both 

positive and negative implications for businesses. (Tjahjono, Esplugues, Ares, & Pelaez, 

2017). Edirisuriya, Weerabahu and Wickramarachchi (2018) highlight five key technolog-

ical factors that will lead to logistic tasks having complete automation in the future. 

These factors are RFID and QR-codes, robots and autonomous vehicles, conveyors and 

sensors as well as smart devices and CPS. (Edirisuriya, Weerabahu, & Wickramarachchi, 

2018) 

 

Based on Efthymiou and Ponis (2019), the most important Industry 4.0 application for 

the needs of material handling is RFID. It offers the possibility of accurate location of 

products or devices in indoor situations. Sensors can also be added into the warehouse’s 

infrastructure to enhance the tracking possibilities. The term preventive maintenance 

was also mentioned as being important in factory environments as the overall equip-

ment effectiveness is a main metric for evaluating manufacturing productivity. The use 

of IoT and especially data analytics are needed to achieve the requirements related to 

preventive maintenance. When talking about the future of physical activities in material 

handling like packing and storing, applications and innovations such as robots, CPS, AR, 

VR and wearable devices were mentioned as the most important ones. The amount of 

information technologies in material handling equipment is constantly increasing and is 

allowing the equipment to autonomously know their location, identify themselves and 

to gather data about their state and the products. Through electronics like phones, tab-

lets, wearables and other AR or VR devices, workers will soon be able to join the IoT 

system and improve the interaction between human and machine.  (Efthymiou & Ponis, 

2019) 

 

Managerial and strategic approach in material handling is taken into consideration by 

Industry 4.0 technologies like simulation, Big Data Analytics and digital twins. Few of 

these were already mentioned earlier, but their importance should be stated as they are 

at the centre of attention when talking about methods for gathering information about 

tasks related to material handling. It is still common that very little data about the 



25 

processes is collected, and the data is often accessed by only a small group of people 

who can decrypt and comprehend domain systems. Material handling equipment and 

facilities are equipped with sensors and linked to systems that are able to organize the 

data to create a digital shadow of reality. This helps in predicting potentially dangerous 

events ahead of time. All in all, it could be said that material handling or logistics is no 

longer only the physical activity of moving the correct material to the correct place in a 

timely manner as it has evolved into a key driver of societal and digital transformation 

mainly due to the Industry 4.0 practices presented earlier. (Efthymiou & Ponis, 2019) 

 

 

Figure 10. Technologies seen as disruptive forces or competitive advantages in the next 10 
years (MHI, 2020). 

 

Figure 10 represents the different technologies based on the degree of competitive ad-

vantage that they will present in the next 10 years according to over 1000 respondents 

from the material handling industry. As can be seen from the figure, there are several 

major technologies to look out for in the future of the industry. All the 11 technologies 

presented range in the area of 30%-65% which means that they are considered to be 

essential and the implementation and investments towards these technologies is ex-

pected to increase during the next decade. The projected 5-year adoption rate of the 

technologies is also expected to be exponentially higher than compared to the usage of 



26 

today. The biggest increases expected regarding usage of the technologies on a 5-year 

period were for technologies like blockchain, AI, AGVs, drones and IoT in general.  

 

Figure 11 shows the adoption rates of the technologies more specifically. As can be seen, 

the innovations most in use today are related to robotics and automation, sensors and 

automatic identification, cloud computing and storage, and tools for optimizing 

inventory and network, whereas blockchain, additive manufacturing, autonomous 

vehicles and drones, and AI technologies are not yet utilized to such a high extent. For 

most of the technologies, the growth of the adoption rates is expected to be biggest 

during the next 1-2 years and slowly declining towards the 6+ year mark. The results of 

Figures 10 and 11, which showed the disruptive forces of technology and adoption rates 

of the technologies and also the general consensus of the industry are very much in line 

in terms of the most common solutions. (MHI, 2021) 



27 

 

Figure 11. Adoption rates of different technologies (MHI, 2021). 

 



28 

The goal of supply chains is to achieve a high level of flexibility and effectiveness. 

Unprecetended and disruptive events are expected to become the norm in the future 

and with the help of digital technologies companies can become more resilient. 

Companies that invested in innovative technologies for supply chains prior to the COVID-

19 crisis were able to respond faster and recover in a shorter time frame. Although digital 

technology does not solve all of the problems, with the help of the technologies 

mentioned in this the goals of organizations can become more easily achievable. Figure 

12 shows the amount of investments that are predicted towards different sort of 

products and services during the next three years. (MHI, 2021) 

 



29 

 

Figure 12. Investments towards different products and services in the next three years (MHI, 
2021). 



30 

 

2.5 Material handling market 

The material handling equipment market includes all equipment related to, for example, 

the storage, movement, control, consumption and manufacturing processes. This equip-

ment enables precise and swift movement of material in different volumes. Examples of 

the different types of equipment were presented earlier in subsection 2.2. This section 

aims solely on giving an insight on the material handling equipment market. The size, 

growth and distribution of the market going forward are pointed out. Historical and fore-

cast revenue of the market segments are also provided. The profiling of the key players 

in the market is showcased separately in subsections 4.1 and 4.2 in the results section.  

The biggest factors influencing the market growth are the technologies that were pre-

sented in subsections 2.3 and 2.4.  The forecasts for the industry can vary based on the 

source that is used, which is why multiple sources are utilized to get the best possible 

idea of what the mean values for the industry would be. The material handling market 

has earlier been researched mainly by several market research companies. Figure 13 

shows the segmentation of the global material handling equipment market by operation, 

system type, application and region.  

 



31 

 

Figure 13. Market segmentation of material handling equipment market (Market Research Fu-
ture, 2021). 

 

According to an industry report conducted by Global Market Insights (2021), the market 

size of the material handling equipment industry reached over 140 billion USD in 2020 

and for the forecast period from 2021 to 2027 the projected CAGR is expected to be 

around 6%. This amount of growth will lead to a market size of over 200 billion USD by 

the end of the forecast period in 2027. The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the indus-

try negatively in 2020 and 2021 as countries have been in strict lockdowns and invest-

ments towards supply chains, expansions and manufacturing facilities have been de-

layed or completely withdrawn. However, a regain of the market is expected during 2021 

even though the pandemic is still ongoing with the increasing demand for the e-com-

merce business being the driving force. Rising labour costs, strict emission norms, and 

growing demand for automation solutions are also mentioned as major growth drivers. 

Some of the biggest challenges of the material handling equipment market are the high 



32 

initial costs of the equipment, technical challenges and possible lack of awareness of the 

operating equipment. (Global Market Insights, 2021) 

 

Based on a market research report by Fortune Business Insights (2021), in 2019 the 

global material handling equipment market size was around 212 billion USD, projected 

to reach 320 billion by 2027 with an average CAGR of 5.4% in the forecast period. As can 

be expected, there are slight differences between the estimated growth numbers de-

pending on the source that is used. Figure 14 shows the market share of the different 

material handling equipment types. As can be seen, cranes and lifting equipment hold 

almost half of the total market share with growth expected to be moderate during the 

forecast period as well. The industrial truck sector is expected to grow significantly dur-

ing the upcoming years due to e-commerce, ageing workforce and rising unit consign-

ments. The continuous handling equipment sector includes for example conveyor sys-

tems, and it is expected to have moderate growth in the future due to industries like 

automotive, food and beverages, and pharmaceutical. Racking and storage equipment 

segment covers equipment like storage racks and automated storage and retrieval sys-

tems. This segment is expected to have consistent growth as a result of the increased 

need for storing bulk material and the growing use of automation solutions. (Fortune 

Business Insights, 2020) 

 

 

Figure 14. Market share of each equipment type (Fortune Business Insights, 2020). 

 



33 

When looking at the geographical segmentation of the market, the categorization is nor-

mally divided into North America, Latin America, Europe, Asia Pacific, the Middle East 

and Africa. Asia Pacific has held the largest market share and in the upcoming years it is 

expected to become an even more dominant market leader in the industry as the coun-

tries are in an increasing manner preferring the adoption of modern methods for mate-

rial handling. According to Global Market Insights (2021), the Asia Pacific accounted for 

over 35% of the revenue share in the market in 2020. For North America the growth is 

anticipated to be substantial as the sales through e-commerce and the need for auto-

mated warehousing are increasing. In terms of Europe moderate growth is expected, 

although the needs are mostly the same as in North America. The Middle East and Africa 

should show consistent growth due to the big infrastructural investments and increased 

disposable income. On the other hand, in Latin America the market is anticipated to grow 

slowly as big players are focusing on expanding manufacturing facilities across several 

emerging countries. (Fortune Business Insights, 2020) 

 

 

 

Figure 15. Material handling firms' economic impact in the US, 2018 (MHI, 2019). 

 



34 

In 2019 MHI and Oxford Economics released a report about the material handling indus-

try in the US. Figure 15 shows the economic impact that the material handling compa-

nies had in the US in 2018. The material handling industry amounted a total of over 173.2 

billion USD in GDP and 39.3 billion USD in taxes to governments. The size of the market 

is emphasized by the fact that in the US in 2018, material handling companies directly 

employed over 400,000 employees. Furthermore, for every worker in the industry an 

additional 2.9 jobs are supported in the wider economy through wage spending or sup-

ply chains. This means that with the total jobs multiplier of 3.9 the industry supported 

1.6 million jobs in the US labour market in 2018. (MHI, 2019) 

 

 

Figure 16. Share of sectors impacted by material handling jobs (MHI, 2019). 

 

Figure 16 shows the impact that material handling jobs had on other sectors in the US in 

2018. As can be expected, the manufacturing industry had the biggest employment im-

pact accounting for 32% of the total impact. The following industries were trade, 

transport, and utilities with 19% share and professional and business services with 9% 

share. None of all the other sectors reached double-digit numbers. The impression of 

material handling industry having a diverse job creation for surrounding sectors is sup-

ported by the fact that non-manufacturing industries accounted for 68% of all jobs sup-

ported by the material handling industry. (MHI, 2019) 



35 

3 Methods 

This thesis is conducted by combining qualitative and quantitative methods, although 

the research mainly contains a theoretical approach. Books, articles, industry reports 

and other academic sources are utilized to provide a review on the material handling 

equipment, technologies, market, and overall status of the industry. 

 

Recording the financial figures of the companies working in the industry, with revenue, 

operating income and the number of personnel being the most important ones, make 

up for the majority of the thesis. Growth percentages of revenue and operating income 

are also introduced to help with determining who have been the best and worst per-

formers in the industry. The financial figures are gathered through Suomen Asiakastieto 

Oy (2021), which is a reliable provider for company information and financials for Finnish 

companies. The study also includes an own section for the TOP20 material handling com-

panies worldwide. The methods for choosing the companies for the study are described 

more thoroughly in the results section. The results are showcased in a table or figure 

form in the thesis to make the presentation simple. The original Excel sheet with all of 

the gathered data is given to the companies participating in the study for future purposes. 

 

As a part of the study a questionnaire related to the development and outlook of the 

material handling industry in the 2020’s was also conducted. The questionnaire was sent 

to a few Finnish material handling companies via email and the answers were gathered 

through telephone interviews. The presented questions are shown and analyzed in sec-

tion 4.4. As mentioned earlier, two explorative remote workshop meetings were also 

held during the writing process together with the case companies and research partici-

pants to determine what is wanted from the study. Based on the suggestions, changes 

were made to the study scope. 

 

 

 



36 

4 Results 

One of the main purposes of the study is to find out how the competition in the industry 

is looking like, which companies are working in the field and how they are doing based 

on their financial figures. This section provides an overall look into the industry by an-

swering the above-mentioned questions. Close attention is also paid to the growth of 

the companies and to which companies have been performing well and which have not. 

Main products of the companies and customer references of some of the companies are 

also presented. 

 

4.1 Companies and competition in the industry 

The first part of the section focuses on the TOP20 material handling suppliers worldwide. 

The revenues of these companies and the location of their headquarters are showcased. 

Closer attention is paid to the Finnish companies in the industry. In the study, all the 

information about the companies, such as economic values and number of personnel 

were gathered into an Excel sheet from a 5-year period. The figures and tables presented 

in this section were created based on that information. In total, the study includes 97 

Finnish material handling industry companies. 

 

The data of the Finnish companies has been gathered through Suomen Asiakastieto web-

site, which is a reliable information source for financials of the Finnish companies. All the 

information presented in the figures are based on the year 2019 or 2020. Suomen 

Asiakastieto only shows the information of the last 5 years for each company, which 

means that the research period had to be either 2015-2019 or 2016-2020. For most com-

panies the values are from 2019 but for a minority, 2020 results were already available, 

and they were used to get the needed study period of five years. Few of the companies 

in the study have been founded relatively recently and, in these cases, the recorded val-

ues are taken from the years that are available. The amount of revenue is presented 

based on one decimal place, while operating income is based on three decimal places. 



37 

Only operating income growth percentages are discussed in this paper, which are based 

on the actual operating income results that were recorded into the Excel sheet.   

 

All the Finnish companies have been manually searched for and chosen for the study, 

because the material handling industry cannot be specifically searched for in the indus-

try search engines that are available online. This made the research process harder, and 

the chosen companies were hand-picked from general company listings. The websites of 

each of the companies were also browsed to find more information about their functions 

and products to ensure the suitability of choosing them for the study. The chosen com-

panies were also later approved in a workshop meeting together with the study partici-

pants and case companies’ representatives. Few of the companies that are considered 

to be part of the Suupohja region are not taken into account in the full listing of the 

Finnish companies as they only serve as a subcontractor company.  

 

What should be noted is that the scope of the material handling industry is very broad, 

which together with the unavailability of a specific industry search makes it almost im-

possible to find each company working in the field. Each of the companies chosen for 

the study either manufactures or designs material handling solutions or acts as a consul-

tation company. Companies that act solely as a retailer, subcontractor or in maintenance 

are excluded from the study to keep the scope reasonable. All areas of material handling 

are included in the company scope and the most common business areas and products 

are introduced later.  

 

Although the growth percentage of operating income is not presented in the same fig-

ures together with the revenue, RPP and number of personnel, the operating income 

numbers will be presented for some of the companies in this section. The point of the 

gathered data is to provide a clear overlook on the companies’ financial figures, which is 

why all the information is not put into the same figure. Section 4.3.2 will focus more on 

the companies that have been doing the best and worst based on growth in revenue and 

operating income. The studied companies have been divided into five separate ranges 



38 

based on their latest revenue to keep the presented information clear. These ranges 

are >50MEUR, 10-50MEUR, 2-10MEUR, 1-2MEUR and <1MEUR.  

 

Table 1. Example table representing the way in which the information was gathered for each 
Finnish company. 

 

 

4.2 Worldwide companies 

The TOP20 material handling system suppliers worldwide based on revenue are show-

cased in Figures 17 and 18. The information is based on 2019, which means that the 

effects of the COVID-19 pandemic are not yet evident. Modern Materials Handling pro-

vides an updated list of the top suppliers each year. The TOP20 list remained, for the 

most part, in the same order as in earlier years and on average the revenues in 2019 

grew 7.3 percent with the total revenue of the companies being 23 billion USD. Biggest 

reason for the growth was the increased demand in automation and several businesses 

investing more into automation projects to cope with the needs of e-commerce.  (Bond, 

2020) 



39 

 

Figure 17. Revenue of TOP20 material handling companies worldwide. 

 

The criteria for the companies to qualify for the list was strict and clearly specified. One 

criterion was that the companies had to have business in North America and have the 

capability of reporting the revenue they get directly from contracts related to material 

handling. The chosen companies also had to be suppliers of actual material handling 

systems, not only providers of certain equipment. Each of the companies had to have 



40 

full-time personnel who manufacture and design a minimum of two different material 

handling systems such as transportation vehicles, data collection and management sys-

tems, picking systems, storage equipment or other sorts of material handling equipment. 

(Bond, 2020) 

 

In total, 10 of the 20 companies on the list experienced double-digit percentage growth 

in 2019. The three companies with the biggest positive change in revenue were Murata 

Machinery (34.1%), Knapp (30.5%) and Material Handling Systems (16.3%). The three 

worst performing companies based on revenue in 2019 were Lödige Industries (-22.3%), 

Viastore SYSTEMS (-20.3%) and Daifuku (-3.6%). The companies in the list remained en-

tirely the same as in the 2018 list, with only a few places being swapped between com-

panies. The top 4 companies were also still in the same order, although Murata Machin-

ery climbed to tie for 4th place, due to their 34.1% growth in 2019. (Bond, 2020) 

 

 

Figure 18. Location of the headquarters of TOP20 material handling companies worldwide.  

 



41 

4.3 Finnish companies 

4.3.1 Revenue, RPP and number of personnel in each company 

This section showcases the revenue, RPP and number of personnel for each of the 97 

Finnish companies that have been chosen to be part of the study. The information is 

presented in several different figures for the sake of clarity with the companies being put 

in order from largest to smallest revenue from latest year. In each range the best and 

worst performers in terms of operating income are also mentioned, although in section 

4.3.2 these will be discussed in the extent of the whole study.  

 

As mentioned earlier, the information of each company is gathered from Asiakastieto.fi. 

What should also be noted is that the presented values are specifically from the compa-

nies’ Finnish functions. For example, in the case of Cargotec and Konecranes, both have 

activity all over the world but only the values of their Finnish functions have been con-

sidered to get a better understanding of the industry specifically in Finland. 

 



42 

 

Figure 19. Finnish material handling companies with over 50MEUR revenue. 

 

As can be seen from Figure 19, there are in total ten Finnish material handling companies 

with over 50MEUR yearly revenue. Cargotec and Konecranes are clearly the biggest 



43 

players in the industry and could compete even against the worldwide competition that 

was presented earlier. All the other companies have a revenue of under 160MEUR with 

Pesmel being to last one to make the list with 53.8MEUR revenue. There does not seem 

to be a clear favorite in terms of product range in the TOP10 companies. The products 

include, for example, cranes, forklifts, loaders, conveyors, packing lines, robotics, and 

automation systems. 

 

Both Cargotec and Konecranes have similar product ranges with both operating in the 

cargo handling and crane business. What should be mentioned is that on the 1st of Oc-

tober 2020 it was announced that Cargotec and Konecranes will merge and form a global 

leader in the material flow industry. The annual sales of the illustrative future company 

were about 7 billion EUR and operating income around 565 million EUR in 2019. Alto-

gether, as of June 2020, these two companies had a total workforce of approximately 

29 400 employees in over 50 countries. The expected completion date for the merger is 

in the fourth quarter of 2021 and as a result of the merger Konecranes will dissolve. The 

name of the future company is to be determined. (Cargotec, 2020) 

 

The main purpose of the merger is to create a leading company in the field of sustainable 

material handling by focusing on safety, productiveness, decarbonization and effective-

ness. The aim of the merger is to strengthen the business positions of the future com-

pany in various industries and to be beneficial from the standpoints of customers, em-

ployees, shareholders and product or service offering. The future company will focus on 

both companies’ expertise in the best possible way to ensure the benefits of all stake-

holders. The extra value for shareholders will be created, for example, by attracting 

global talents, expanding the R&D scope and focusing on the cost synergies to make sure 

that the results have a value higher than the sum of their parts. (Cargotec, 2020) 

 

The TOP10 companies have been performing effectively in the 5-year period with the 

average increase in revenue being 42.8%. The companies with the biggest growth were 

Cimcorp (84.4%), Mitsubishi Logisnext Europe (77.7%) and Avant Tecno (61.6%). The 



44 

smallest revenue growth in the period was for Cargotec (4.4%) and BMH Technology 

(5.5%). All the other companies had double-digit growth in the 5-year period. Based on 

the growth percentage of operating income, the companies that have been doing the 

best are Mitsubishi Logisnext Europe (6485%), Pesmel (180.3%) and Konecranes 

(172.7%). The worst operating income trajectory in the 5-year period was for K-Hartwall 

(-68.3%) and Cimcorp (-66.5%). Each of the other companies had double-digit growth in 

operating income.  

 

When looking at the development of operating income of the companies, it is important 

to remember that there are various actions and decisions happening within the compa-

nies that are not always available for the public or might be announced with a delay. 

Based on the information found in the study it can be concluded that the operating in-

come returns vary greatly between each year and are often not related to the amount 

of revenue the company has been able to generate. Big investments, business rearrange-

ments and company buyouts or acquisitions can have a big effect on the operating in-

come for several years, as it can take a long time until new investments to the business 

start creating value and returns for the company. Therefore, the growth of operating 

income is not always the best indicator of how a company is actually doing. 

 



45 

 

Figure 20. Finnish material handling companies with 10-50MEUR revenue. 

 

Figure 20 showcases the next wave of companies based on the revenue, this time in the 

range of 10-50MEUR. In this scope, there are once again two companies that clearly have 

the biggest amount of revenue. These companies are Signode and Algol Technics, with 



46 

the remaining companies all having below 17MEUR revenue. The biggest growth in rev-

enue, however, has been achieved by Yaskawa (61.2%), Orfer (37.5%) and Laitex (22.5%). 

Only companies with a negative growth in revenue were NT Liftec (-12.3%) and JTA Con-

nection (-4.8%). However, JTA Connection is a relatively new company for which only the 

information from 2018 and 2019 were available.  

 

Operating income has been growing the fastest for Yaskawa (244.8%), Kopar (188.3%) 

and NT Liftec (101.6%). Surprisingly, five of the eleven companies had a negative oper-

ating income growth in the period with Makron (-276.6%), Orfer (-84.8%) and Nordau-

tomation (-82.4%) being the ones with the biggest decrease. In this case, Orfer simulta-

neously had one of the biggest growths in revenue and also the biggest decrease in op-

erating income, which is a great example of how the growth in revenue and operating 

income do not always go hand in hand. With the amount of companies being so large in 

the study, the reasoning behind some companies having such decreases in operating 

income while having great growth in revenue has not been investigated further. 

 



47 

 

Figure 21. Finnish material handling companies with 2-10MEUR revenue. 



48 

 

In the range of 2-10MEUR yearly revenue (Figure 21) the competition gets much tighter. 

There are no clear standout companies, and the spread is even all the way from top to 

bottom. The number of personnel for each of the companies is below 100 and the RPP 

is spread in the small range of 0.10-0.33MEUR. Companies from different fields of ma-

terial handling are also well presented, although in this range most companies manufac-

ture either conveyor or production line solutions.  

 

The growth in revenue has been the biggest for Dymont (200%), Skanveir (144.4%) and 

Invenir (143.5%). Only three of the 32 companies have had negative growth, of which 

Amitec (-66.3%) had clearly the biggest decrease. Nipere (-15.6%) and Nordlift (-10.7%) 

were the other negative performers, although for these two companies the information 

was only available for two separate years. In terms of operating income growth, the best 

performers have been Jakaja (23500%), RE-Suunnittelu (1630.8%) and Frendix (970.6%), 

whereas Jomet (-2085.5%), Amitec (-1417.2%) and Kito Erikkila (-456.1%) have had the 

biggest decrease. Erikkila joined the KITO Group in 2018 and the following year their 

operating income declined by a lot, which could be explained by the arrangements that 

had to be made in the process. (KITO Erikkila, 2021) 

 



49 

 

Figure 22. Finnish material handling companies with 1-2MEUR revenue. 

 

The range of 1-2MEUR revenue is shown in Figure 22. Here the competition is tight once 

again and each decimal point is presented. Best performers in terms of revenue growth 



50 

in the 5-year period have been CONTIK Group (300%), Posicraft (300%) and JAST Works 

(116.7%). Worst performers, on the other hand, have been companies like Robomec (-

21.4%), KasLog (-17.6%) and EP Logistics (0%). As can be seen from the results, this range 

has been performing very well in general and even the results of the worst performing 

companies are not negative by much. Based on operating income, growth has been the 

biggest for Osakeyhtiö Kuljetin (2950%), CONTIK Group (1171.4%) and AC Cranes Trading 

(1163.6%). Worst performers have been Mailroom Solutions (-533.7%), KasLog (-140.2%) 

and EP Logistics (-52.6%).  

 



51 

 

Figure 23. Finnish material handling companies with 0-1MEUR revenue. 



52 

 

The smallest material handling companies based on revenue are presented in Figure 23. 

Here the revenue of each company is below 1MEUR and the majority of the companies 

are located in the bottom end of the scope. The number of personnel in the companies 

is below ten, except for Hiottu, which has 14 employees in total. In this range about one 

third of the companies are led by self-employed entrepreneurs, who might also have 

daytime jobs at another company.  This in itself explains the small revenue amounts and 

RPP. Overall, it can be said that these companies do not play a big part in the Finnish 

material handling industry as their market share is so small.  

 

Biggest growth in revenue has been for Hiottu, SimAnalytics, MB-Team, Isojoen 

Laitevalmiste and Lapuan Projektipalvelu, who all had 100% growth in the study period.  

The worst performers based on revenue have been Saimatec Engineering (-93.5%), 

Finnrobotics (-83.3%) and Kujakon (-60%). What is worth mentioning is that as the reve-

nues are rounded to one decimal, the percentage amounts can be imprecise in the com-

panies with the smallest revenues. This starts to show especially in this smallest range 

as many of the companies only have 0.1-0.3MEUR revenue and even a small change in 

revenue can have a big effect on the percentage. In terms of operating income, the top 

performers have been Lapuan Projektipalvelu (540%), LC Logistics Center (180%) and 

Janmet (133.3%). Lowest percentages have been for Compitec (-380%), Topi-Koneet (-

108.3%) and Suit Networks (-97.8%). Although the percentages seem to be quite high 

for the best and worst performers, it needs to be remembered when talking about these 

smallest companies in the industry, that the changes can be big even though the operat-

ing income has not changed by too much in terms of euros. 

 

4.3.2 Companies with the best and worst success 

This section focuses on finding out which companies have been doing the best and worst 

based on the growth numbers and trajectory of revenue and operating income. Each 

individual company is not investigated closely, as the attention is paid to the TOP30 com-

panies based on revenue (Table 2) and the companies with highest and lowest growth 



53 

percentages and the amount of change in the study period (Tables 3 and 4). The idea is 

to get a better general idea about the performance and competitiveness of the studied 

companies. 

 

Table 2. Development of revenue and operating income in TOP30 companies based on            
revenue. 

 

 

The sparklines in Table 2 represent the development of revenue and operating income 

in the 5-year period that was chosen for the study. The red dots indicate the point where 



54 

the revenue or operating income of the company has been at the lowest, and the green 

dots show when they have been at the all-time high value. No actual number values are 

shown in this table, as the point is just to give an idea about how the biggest Finnish 

companies in the industry have been developing.  

 

Majority of the companies have experienced growth in revenue over the 5-year period 

with the only exception being NT Liftec, whose revenue has decreased from 11.4MEUR 

in 2016 to 10MEUR in 2020. The growth in revenue has been the steadiest for companies 

such as Mitsubishi Logisnext Europe, Avant Tecno, Atostek and KL Mechanics, who have 

grown their revenue evenly over the years. K-Hartwall, Yaskawa and Sweco also deserve 

a mention for their impressive growth. For 17 of the 30 companies, the latest year has 

been the best in terms of revenue, which can be seen from the number of green dots on 

the right-hand side of the revenue development column.  

 

In terms of operating income, the results vary more between companies each year. There 

is no clear correlation that steady growth in revenue automatically results in steady 

growth of operating income as well, which has to do with the factors that were men-

tioned earlier, such as company investments. 12 of the 30 companies had their highest 

operating income in the latest presented year, which means that five companies were 

not able to increase their operating income although they had their best year in terms 

of revenue.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



55 

 

 

Table 3. Companies with the biggest growth in revenue and operating income. 

 

 

Table 3 shows the companies that have performed the best in terms of growth in reve-

nue and operating income in the five-year study period. The biggest growth in revenue 

has been for Posicraft (300%), CONTIK Group (300%) and Dymont (200%).  All of the 

companies to make the list are relatively small with most ranging in the 1-6MEUR reve-

nue area. The operating income section offers some astonishing numbers with Jakaja 

(23500%), Mitsubishi Logisnext Europe (6485%) and Osakeyhtiö Kuljetin (2950%). How-

ever, here most of the companies are also quite small and even a slight change in oper-

ating income has a big effect on the growth percentage. A great example of this is 

Osakeyhtiö Kuljetin, whose result has changed from -2000 EUR to 57 000 EUR. This leads 

to a high growth rate, but the actual money amounts are still very small.  



56 

Table 4. Companies with the smallest growth in revenue and operating income. 

 

 

Table 4 focuses on the worst performing companies based on revenue and operating 

income growth percentage. Although all of the values are negative, the percentages are 

much more moderate when compared to the best performers presented in Table 3. The 

fall in revenue was the biggest for Saimatec Engineering (-93.5%), Finnrobotics (-83.3%) 

and Amitec (-66.3%). Amitec has also had the biggest drop in monetary value with reve-

nue dropping from 16.6MEUR to 5.6MEUR.  

 

Some of the decreases can be explained by the companies letting go of some of their 

business operations or investing more into product development and research. For ex-

ample, Saimatec Engineering moved their key business area of roll handling and roll 

wrapping systems under the company named Uproval, which is one of the biggest rea-

sons for their decrease. (Uproval, 2021) Uproval is also included in the study as an indi-

vidual company.  

 

4.3.3 Products and customers of the companies  

This section presents the main products that the Finnish material handling companies 

manufacture or offer in general (Figure 24), the material types that are transported with 



57 

these products (Figure 25) and the customer references of some of the material handling 

companies (Figure 26).  

 

 

Figure 24. Main products of the Finnish material handling companies. 

 

The material handling products of the companies have been divided into seven individ-

ual categories to keep the presentation layout simple. The precise content and product 

scope of each sector is described as well. Three example companies who manufacture 

or offer those exact products or solutions are showcased in each part of the pie chart. 

The size or the amount of revenue of the companies are not considered here, which 

means that each company is on the same line and the most suitable category has been 

chosen for every company. What made the task harder was that the majority of the 97 

companies provide various solutions to the material handling industry, which made it 

challenging to decide which company to put into which category. In these cases, closer 

attention was paid to the websites of the companies to find out what are their main 

products and most common solutions.  

 

 



58 

There are three clearly biggest product sections in the material handling industry in Fin-

land, which are: 

 

• Conveyors (29%) 

• Forklifts and lifters (22%) 

• Automation, robotics, and programming (20%) 

 

The conveyor section also includes products such as elevators, pumps, crushers, and 

general material handling systems. Conveyors are used to move mainly bulk material, 

which is transported in large quantities and has a small grain size. They are manufactured 

by companies such as Raumaster, BMH Technology and Laitex. The forklift and lifter sec-

tion includes all the solutions that are used to transport countable material that is not 

transported via conveyors or production lines. This includes, in addition to all sorts of 

forklifts and lifters, solutions such as AGVs, air film movers, air bearing modules, lifting 

jacks, loading bridges, cassette systems and vacuum grippers. Companies manufacturing 

forklifts and lifters are, for example, Cargotec, Solving and NT Liftec. 

 

Cimcorp, JTA Connection and Makron are companies that focus on automation, robotics, 

or programming solutions, which is another big sector in the industry. In the study this 

sector includes all companies, whose main products are solutions related to automation 

systems, software and programming, computer vision, digitalization, cloud services and 

robots. Next up is the production line sector with 8% share of the total market. The pro-

duction line manufacturers have their own sector in the pie, although many of these 

bigger production line solutions can also include products from the conveyor sector and 

it is hard to draw the line in which sector to include each company. The sector includes 

companies like Pesmel, Amitec and Invenir, who manufacture production lines, packing 

lines and other factory lines based on the customer’s needs.  All in all, these solutions 

are normally bigger entities than the ones manufactured by the conveyor sector compa-

nies. 

 



59 

Wrapping, packing and special machines present an 8% share of the total equipment 

market in Finland. The overall product scope of the sector also includes strapping ma-

chines, stretch wrapping machines, stretch hooding machines, sacking machines, and 

cutting machines. These are manufactured by companies such as Signode, Jomet and 

Octomeca. Consulting sector also covers 8% of the total market, and it is represented by 

companies like Fimatic, LogScale and EP Logistics. These companies serve their custom-

ers in the planning and implementation phases of system deliveries related to logistics 

and production organizations. They can also work in an expert role for supplier compa-

nies on demanding customer projects and consult companies on the compliance of their 

supply chains. Services range from the development of logistics strategies to practical 

solution implementations. The last sector is the sector that contains all the products 

which cannot be appointed to any other sector, which is 5% of the total pie. This includes 

companies like Finnchain, who manufacture sludge and chain scraper systems and 

Nipere, who manufactures mill and feed mixing systems under Rivakka brand. 

 

 

Figure 25. Material types that are transported with the companies' products. 

 

The share of different material types that are transported with the products of the com-

panies are shown in Figure 25. Each company has been categorized based on their 



60 

products and the material that is transported with them. Each company is on the same 

line in the classification and size of the company has no effect. Bulk-material is clearly 

the biggest sector with a 31% share, and it includes all materials that have a small grain 

size, such as powders and woodchips, that are transported generally via conveyors. Neo-

bulk cargo covers 29% of the pie chart overall and it includes all loose piece materials 

that are transported via lifters, forklifts, and robots, or with the help of wafters, roller 

cages and containers. Break bulk cargo takes up 22% of the total and includes all count-

able material that is transported via production lines or conveyors and has a bigger grain 

size. The last sector is categorized as the “Others” sector, and it covers 10% of the total 

share and includes mainly the consultation companies, who do not really have physical 

materials that are transported, as they only provide their expertise to the customers. 

The last material category is data, which covers 8% of the pie chart. This includes com-

panies who offer solutions related to data storage, cloud services, digitalization, and pro-

gramming.  

 

 

Figure 26. Customer references of Finnish material handling companies. 

 

The customer references for ten Finnish material handling companies are presented in 

Figure 26. The companies were chosen based on the fact that they had to have the cus-

tomer references available for the public, which is not the case for most of the 



61 

companies. The majority of the companies do not want to publicly announce who their 

customers are and choose to, for example, only present the different solutions they have 

delivered without mentioning the specific customer. This most likely has to do with the 

fact that by finding out the customer, competing companies could contact them and of-

fer their own solutions instead. The references have been gathered from the official web-

site of each company and the idea is to provide a good insight on the nature of the com-

panies that order material handling solutions and in what fields of business or industry 

these companies function in.  

 

Overall, there are several fields of industry that stand out as the most common ones for 

the customers of material handling products. The biggest of these seems to be the food 

and beverage industry, which includes companies like Valio, Saarioinen, HK, Kinnusen 

Mylly, Paulig, Arla, Olvi, Fazer, Orkla, Vaasan, NordicSoya, Raisio, Nestle, Dansukker and 

Brunberg, who are all presented in Figure 26. Most of the products delivered to this field 

of industry are manufactured by companies who manufacture conveyors and production 

line systems, such as Orfer, Amitec and Jakaja. This is to be expected as this type of so-

lutions can be used to transport large quantities of material effectively within a factory, 

which is essential in the food and beverage industry.  

 

The metal, mining, wood, and paper industry companies are also well presented in the 

customer references. The companies that are a part of these industries are Metsä Group, 

Kontino, SSAB, Metso, Södra, Stora Enso, Sandvik, SMA Mineral, Lunawood and Raute. 

For these industries the most common solutions have been the conveyor and production 

line deliveries by companies such as Kospirt and Raumaster, who are specialized in man-

ufacturing solutions for transporting bulk material. Software, machine vision, and cloud 

service solutions have also been popular with Atostek and Hiottu delivering their solu-

tions to companies like Sandvik, SSAB, Raute, Lunawood.  

 

The transportation vehicle industry is also well represented by companies like VR, CAT, 

Volvo, Valmet Automotive, MAN and Finnair acting as the customers. For this industry 



62 

the delivered solutions have been mainly automated storaging, AGV, air film mover and 

packing line solutions by Algol Technics and Solving. Another popular industry is the 

healthcare industry, which includes companies such as Fimlab, HUS, OYS, Orion and Nex-

stim. The variety of solutions delivered to the healthcare industry have been wide, with 

Algol Technics, Amitec, Atostek and Finn-ID all acting as the suppliers. Especially the dig-

italization and logistic ERP systems by Finn-ID have been popular with them supplying 

both Fimlab and HUS. The agriculture industry is also well featured by companies like 

Hankkija, Lantmännen Agro, Viljava and Biolan, who all are customers of Jakaja, who 

manufactures conveyors, elevators, and pipe systems for transporting bulk material. 

 

4.3.4 Summary 

This section aims to summarize the development of the Finnish material handling com-

panies in general, without focusing on individual companies. It will look at factors such 

as the total development of total revenue and operating income, average growth per-

centages for both of them and the total amount of personnel working in the industry. 

The average growth percentages have been calculated by taking the average value of all 

of the companies from the 5-year period. The amount of revenue or the general size of 

the company has no effect as in this case each company has equal weight. 

 



63 

 

Figure 27. Total revenues of the companies during 2015-2019. 

 

Figure 27 presents the total revenue of all of the 97 companies combined in the 5-year 

period of 2015-2019. The trajectory of the revenues has been going upwards steadily, 

although between 2016-2017 the total amount decreased very slightly. Average increase 

in revenue during the timeline has been 39%. Based on the results, it can be said that 

the industry is constantly growing in Finland and the need for material handling solutions 

is not slowing down. What should be remembered is that the two biggest companies 

accumulate almost two thirds of the total revenue amount with Cargotec having 

1208.9MEUR and Konecranes 782.7MEUR revenue. Once the merger that was discussed 

in section 4.3.1 officially goes through, the future company will have majority of the 

market share in Finland.  

 



64 

Table 5. Summary of average revenue increase in percentage. 

 

 

The average percentage increase in revenue for each of the earlier shown revenue 

ranges are shown in the columns of Table 5. The growth rate seems to fluctuate notably 

between the ranges, although it needs to be remembered that the average can be highly 

affected even by one company having large-scale increase or decrease in their growth. 

The percentages in Table 5 take each company in the ranges into account, but one option 

would have been to cut out a few of the top and bottom performing companies in each 

range to get a better mean value.  

 

The best and worst performing companies in each revenue range were presented earlier, 

so they will not be looked into here. For companies with over 50MEUR revenue, the 

growth has been impressive with the average percentage being 42.8% and yearly per-

centage average totalling to 8.6%. The big companies with high revenues are able to 

make large investments and even corporate acquisitions, which normally have a positive 

impact on the growth. In 10-50MEUR range the growth has been much more moderate, 

with the average being 16.9% in 5 years and 3.4% in a year. Even the standout companies 

in the range did not have big time three-digit growth numbers, which shows how hard it 

is to gain market share and how tight the competition in the industry can be.  

 

In 2-10MEUR range the growth has once again been remarkable with the average being 

46.45% and in a year 9.3%. Here the spread of the growth numbers between the com-

panies starts to get much more noticeable with some pulling negative growth rates and 

others having three-digit growth in the timespan. The growth has been the most sub-

stantial in the 1-2MEUR range, with the average being 74.2% in 5-year period and 14.8% 



65 

in a year. This is due to the hefty three-digit growth by several companies and by only 

two companies having a slightly negative growth. In the smallest range of below 1MEUR 

the growth has been the smallest with 14.4% in 5 years and 2.9% in a year. Many of these 

companies are owned by private entrepreneurs and only employ 1-10 persons, which 

makes it hard to compete against the big competitors in the industry.  

 

 

 

Figure 28. Total operating incomes of the companies during 2015-2019. 

 

The overall growth of operating income in the Finnish material handling companies is 

shown in Figure 28. The growth has not been as direct as it was in terms of the revenues, 

and the decrease in 2016-2017 has been even bigger than compared to the revenue 

trajectory. The average yearly operating income growth percentage has been 7.2% dur-

ing the timeframe and in 2019/2020 it was 8.4% on average, which shows that the yearly 

growth percentage has grown slightly. As can be expected, the two biggest companies 

take up a lion’s share of the total operating income as well. For Cargotec, the operating 

income in 2019 was 37.4MEUR and for Konecranes 75.3MEUR, while the total of all of 

the companies was 182MEUR. The bigger drop from 2016 to 2017 can also be explained 

by the results of these two biggest companies. For Cargotec, operating income dropped 



66 

from 16.8MEUR in 2016 to 3.3MEUR in 2017, and for Konecranes from 50.9MEUR in 

2016 to 36.4MEUR in 2017. This big drop in the results of these two companies has a 

very visible effect on the overall operating income of the companies as well.  

 

 

 

Figure 29. Total number of personnel in Finnish material handling companies. 

 

The total number of personnel in the companies is presented in Figure 29. Here the tra-

jectory has been upwards each year, even though in terms of revenue and operating 

income there were a few visible bumps. As the companies are able to improve their re-

sults in terms of revenue and overall growth almost continuously, more and more per-

sonnel are needed each year to cope with the increasing workload. In 2019 the number 

of personnel in wider Suupohja area material handling companies was 645 persons.  

 

4.3.5 Suupohja companies 

This section briefly introduces the material handling companies that are located rela-

tively close to the Suupohja region, which in this study is referred to as the wider 

Suupohja area.  Most of these companies were already presented earlier when going 



67 

through the Finnish companies and their financial figures, which is why they will not 

introduced more thoroughly here.  

 

 

Figure 30. Wider Suupohja region material handling companies. 

 

All the material handling actors in wider Suupohja region are shown in Figure 30. The 

division has been done based on how the companies are placed on the overall supply 

chain in the area and what the company’s role is. Integrator companies are the so-called 

top companies, who deliver end-use material handling solutions to their customers and 

have several subcontractors. Most of these companies also have notable amounts of 

revenue and they can be considered as big players in the area. Subcontractors, on the 

other hand, are companies who do not necessarily deliver actual material handling so-

lutions but instead only manufacture individual components for a material handling so-

lution and focus mainly on production only. Because of this, most of these companies 

(Säte, Datasteel, Lapua-ketjut, Harkame, Alvarin Metalli) were not taken into account in 

the overall study and their performance was not showcased earlier. These companies 

are still presented here as the criteria for Suupohja companies was not as strict and all 

of the actors related to the industry were wanted to be showcased.  

 



68 

Information technology, automation and consultation companies have been put into 

their own boxes in Figure 30 to display their role in the supply chain. In Suupohja region, 

there are two actors in each of these sectors and although these companies are special-

ized in a particular field of the industry, they can all be considered to be material handling 

companies. These are all relatively small actors with minor revenue, which is why they 

are not part of the integrator companies. Overall, the total amount of revenue of the 

Suupohja area material handling companies was about 136MEUR and operating income 

around 5.7MEUR in 2019. 

 

4.4 Questionnaire results 

The last section of the study included conducting a questionnaire for the companies 

working in the industry and concluding a summary of the results. The idea of the ques-

tionnaire was to get a better perception on the market, technology, and main solutions 

in material handling. Respondents answered the questions mainly based on their own 

company’s perspective, which needs to be remembered when summarizing the results. 

The specific field of the industry as well as product scopes and solutions of the compa-

nies differ, which also leads to having varying answers to the questions. The results were 

gathered by phone interviews during spring 2021.  

 

The questions that were presented to the companies are listed below: 

 

• What are the key material handling solutions and features of the 2020s? 

• Where does the industry compete geographically? 

• How do you see the life cycle of the products? 

• What are the key technologies in the industry? 

• What are the customer criteria when choosing products? 

• What are the key machines of the delivered solutions? 

 

In terms of key material handling solutions and features in 2020’s, increased demand for 

automation and digitalization solutions was the most common answer by the 



69 

respondents.  These two terms go hand in hand and according to the respondents many 

of their processes are yet to be automated. The integration of individual programs and 

ERP will also be crucial in automating production processes and optimizing material 

flows. The consensus was that by automating certain processes and increasing the 

amount of networking and digitalization, companies are able to enhance other opera-

tions with small extra investments as well. The increased use of camera technology and 

computer vision in inspecting processes was also seen as a major factor during the on-

going decade. The importance of investing in R&D was also mentioned, as the require-

ments and standards for the products of the companies are constantly increasing, which 

leads to further development.  

 

The answers related to the geographical competition in the industry varied between the 

companies, which is to be expected as the product scopes differ. Most of the respond-

ents mentioned that the competition is worldwide and big economies from Asia, such as 

China and India were brought up. According to one respondent, in the future it will be 

important to operate also locally in these big economies as localized aspect is needed in 

regional competition. Big economies want the competition to operate in their market-

place, which leads to the companies need to function in several different business areas 

if possible.  

 

Regardless of this, according to the majority of the respondents the main competition 

for their company still comes from Europe and especially other Nordic countries. Specific 

countries were mentioned depending on the respondent, but there was no clear con-

sensus that a certain country in Europe can be seen as the biggest competing area. USA 

and Canada were also mentioned individually, but the companies from these countries 

were seen mainly as local competitors in North America region and therefore not as ma-

jor threats in the industry. Most of the respondent companies work in a niche business 

within material handling industry, which is why only one third of the companies men-

tioned Finland as a major competing region. Many of the competitors within Finland are 

mainly distributors and do not have their own manufacturing facilities. In conclusion it 



70 

could be said that the competition is global and there are local competitors no matter 

where you go.  

 

The life cycle of the products was another question where the product scope of the com-

panies had a big effect on the answers. Recyclability of the products was one of the main 

terms that came up regarding the life cycle. These days many customers demand that 

the products can be recycled after they have been taken out of operation. Many re-

spondents also mentioned that for the time being, most of the needed materials are so 

cheap that often it is more beneficial for the customer to purchase totally new equip-

ment rather than update or fix the old ones. Nonetheless, repair and upgrading projects 

of material handling equipment of the companies are still popular as it can be a simpler 

solution from the customers point of vi