Understanding Product Certifications in an Evolving Technology Landscape

SOLUTIONS COMMUNITY

October 15, 2026

Two engineers in work overalls reviewing robotic system designs on a computer monitor inside an automated warehouse.

What certifications can tell us, where gaps remain, and what buyers should verify

For automated material handling systems, product certifications are often applied to individual components, assemblies, and control systems, rather than to the entire system as a whole. An automated storage and retrieval system (ASRS), conveyor system, pallet shuttle, autonomous guided vehicle (AGV), autonomous mobile robot (AMR), or robotic cell may incorporate dozens of certified products that collectively support electrical and mechanical safety.

Certifications can provide valuable information about how a product was evaluated, the standards applied to it, and the conditions under which it is intended to be used. They are an important part of equipment selection—but they are not a universal stamp of safety, and there is no single certification that applies to every product used in a material handling system.

That distinction is increasingly important as warehouses adopt robotics, autonomous mobile robots, automated storage and retrieval systems, machine-vision technology, advanced sensors, battery systems, and other rapidly developing equipment. Technology often advances faster than regulations and consensus standards. In some cases, a well-established certification pathway exists. In others, the applicable standards are still developing, address only portions of the equipment, or do not yet provide a clear certification route for the complete integrated system.

For design engineers, integrators, consultants, purchasing professionals, and end users, the right question is therefore not simply, “Is this product certified?” The better questions are: “What requirements apply to this product and its intended use? What exactly was evaluated? Which risks are covered—and which still need to be addressed?”

What Product Certification Means

A product certification generally indicates that an independent certification body evaluated a product against the requirements of one or more identified standards. Depending on the certification program, the process may include product testing, review of technical documentation, inspection of the manufacturing location, and follow-up activities intended to confirm that production continues to match the evaluated design.

Within OSHA’s Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) Program, OSHA recognizes private-sector organizations that are qualified to test and certify certain products for workplace use. NRTL approval is required where an OSHA standard calls for equipment to be approved, listed, labeled, or certified by such an organization. Many types of workplace electrical equipment fall within these requirements, along with certain other product categories.

However, OSHA does not certify products itself, and NRTL approval is not a universal requirement for every mechanical component, machine, or material handling product. A certification mark also does not mean that a product is appropriate for every environment, application, or system configuration. It means that the product was evaluated to the identified standard and within the conditions and limitations of that certification.

Why the Correct Certification Depends on the Product

The certifications and standards that matter depend on the equipment, its hazards, its intended environment, and how it will be incorporated into the larger system. A sensor, industrial control panel, robot, lift truck, battery, conveyor, and complete automated system may be subject to different—and sometimes overlapping—requirements.

Before purchasing or specifying equipment, the project team should consider:

Product type and function. Determine what the equipment does, the energy sources it uses, and the hazards it introduces.
Intended environment. Confirm whether it will be used indoors or outdoors; in wet, dusty, corrosive, hygienic, or hazardous locations; or under unusual temperature or vibration conditions.
Applicable requirements. Identify relevant OSHA provisions, electrical and building codes, fire-code requirements, consensus standards, customer specifications, and state or local requirements.
Certification scope. Verify the manufacturer, model, certification mark, applicable standard, and any conditions or limitations shown in the certification directory or product documentation.
Component versus system approval. A certified component does not automatically make the complete machine or integrated system certified or compliant. Integration can introduce new hazards and may alter how a component is permitted to be used.
Installation and modification. Listed or labeled equipment must be installed and used according to its instructions. Field modifications can affect or invalidate an approval and should be reviewed before implementation.

When Technology Outpaces Standards

Emerging technology creates a particular challenge. Regulations commonly establish broad employer obligations, but detailed product standards and certification programs require time to develop. By the time a standard is written, approved, and incorporated into a certification program, the technology may already have changed substantially.

As a result, a product may not have a familiar certification mark for several very different reasons. The product may not require that type of certification. An applicable standard may exist but no certification program may yet cover the complete product. Individual components may be certified while the integrated system is not. The technology may fall between existing standards, or the manufacturer may simply have failed to obtain a certification that is available and required. These situations should not be treated as equivalent.

The absence of a certification pathway does not eliminate the need to manage risk. Where a relevant certification is unavailable or does not address the complete system, the project team should document the gap and use other credible methods to evaluate safety. Depending on the application, this may include a documented risk assessment; review against applicable consensus standards; verification and validation of safety functions; engineering analysis; testing by a qualified independent organization; functional-safety evaluation; and review by the manufacturer, integrator, end user, and other subject-matter experts.

The Role—and Limits—of the AHJ

Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJs), such as electrical inspectors, building officials, and fire-code officials, play an important role in reviewing installations under the codes they enforce. Their involvement should be planned early, especially when a project uses unfamiliar technology or equipment without a conventional listing.

However, an AHJ review should not be treated as the project’s primary safety evaluation or as a guarantee that every certification issue will be identified. The AHJ’s authority, technical specialty, familiarity with emerging technology, and scope of review can vary. A passed inspection does not transfer the designer’s, manufacturer’s, integrator’s, employer’s, or end user’s responsibility to understand the equipment and control its hazards.

For novel applications, early and transparent discussion with the AHJ can reduce surprises, but the project team must arrive prepared. That means identifying the applicable codes and standards, explaining the technology and its safety functions, presenting available certifications and engineering documentation, and clearly addressing any gaps.

A Practical Verification Process

A risk-based purchasing and design process should include the following steps:

Define the product’s intended function, operating environment, foreseeable misuse, and role within the overall system.
Identify the regulatory, code, consensus-standard, contractual, and customer requirements that apply to the product and installation.
Determine which certifications are required, which are voluntary but valuable, and whether a recognized certification pathway exists.
Verify claims using the certification body’s directory and confirm the manufacturer, model, standard, scope, and conditions of use—not merely the appearance of a logo.
Evaluate the complete system. Confirm that integration, software, safeguarding, controls, installation, and modifications have not introduced risks beyond those addressed by component certifications.
Document certification gaps and the engineering or risk-reduction measures used to address them.
Engage the AHJ and other qualified reviewers early when the technology, installation, or approval path is unclear.

Certification Is a Starting Point, Not the Finish Line

Product certifications are valuable because they give purchasers and users evidence that defined requirements were evaluated by a qualified organization. But their value depends on understanding what the certification covers, whether it applies to the exact product and application, and where its limits end.

For automated material handling systems, certification does not replace machine risk assessments, safety function validation, lockout/tagout procedures, OSHA compliance review, or applicable ANSI standards compliance.

The certifications demonstrate that individual components were independently evaluated, while the risk assessment and validation demonstrate that the entire automated system is safe for its intended use.

As material handling technology continues to evolve, organizations need a more thoughtful approach than searching for a familiar mark or assuming that the absence of one makes a product automatically unacceptable. Strong due diligence combines applicable certifications with competent engineering, system-level risk assessment, careful integration, documented decision-making, and early coordination with relevant stakeholders. The goal is not simply to find a label. It is to build a defensible understanding of the product, the standards that apply, the gaps that remain, and the controls necessary to use the technology safely.