A product scans successfully at the till. Does that mean the business can use its batch or expiry information to make a better decision? Those are separate acceptance questions. A 2D barcode programme needs to connect packaging, product data, systems and the people who act on exceptions.
SCP's recommendation is to select one useful operating decision before commissioning a broad packaging change. Prove the complete journey, including what happens when information is missing.
What does the 2027 ambition actually mean?
GS1's December 2025 retail implementation guideline describes an industry ambition for point-of-sale systems to read and process product identifiers from existing linear and supported 2D barcodes by the end of 2027. It describes a voluntary transition; it does not announce a universal legal deadline to remove traditional barcodes. Linear and 2D symbols can coexist. [1]
This distinction matters when setting scope. Accepting an identifier at checkout and using additional information across the business are different capabilities. Neither a new scanner nor new artwork alone demonstrates that both work.
Compare the standards and consultancy perspectives
GS1's May 2026 host and backend systems playbook widens the discussion from scanning to connected retail systems and governance. It is implementation guidance, not a measured return-on-investment study. [2]
A separate GS1 Healthcare report, produced with Deloitte in November 2024, investigates readiness for a single barcode on healthcare packs. Its published summary emphasises simplifying scanning and interoperability. That is a useful adjacent perspective, but healthcare findings cannot establish retail readiness or savings. The accessible publisher-indexed summary was reviewed; the full report could not be retrieved. [3]
These are related sources, not independent confirmation of a retail business case: GS1 publishes both, and commissioned the healthcare study. Our interpretation is that the useful common question is whether the right information reaches the next process reliably. Claims about waste reduction, recall effectiveness or customer engagement still need evidence in the proposed setting.
What about QR codes, DataMatrix and RFID?
QR codes are one type of two-dimensional barcode; DataMatrix is another. The important design choice is what the carrier contains, how it is read and which business process uses the result.
- Data encoded on the product: a GS1 DataMatrix can carry structured identifiers and attributes such as a product identifier, batch or lot number and expiry date. The receiving system must understand those fields.
- Information accessed online: a QR code using GS1 Digital Link can encode identifiers in a web-compatible address and connect a scan to online product information. Instructions, certificates or richer product content can reside online rather than inside the printed code. Keeping that content accurate remains a separate responsibility.
- Radio-based identification: RFID tags use a chip and antenna instead of an optically read pattern. EPC provides a way to encode GS1 identifiers on RAIN RFID tags. Appropriate RFID systems can read multiple tags without individually aiming a barcode scanner; read reliability still needs testing with the actual products and environment.
GS1 explains the 2D barcode options (15 May 2025), the distinction between encoded data and linked digital content (GS1 Denmark, 21 September 2026), and EPC identifiers for RFID. These are standards explanations, not independent evidence of savings. GS1's comparison of barcode and EPC RFID capture describes multi-tag reading.
SCP's recommendation is to choose around the requirement: a customer looking up instructions, a till processing expiry data and a team counting many tagged items present different needs. RFID may complement printed codes; it is a separate option, not a requirement of the 2027 retail barcode ambition. A tag or code identifies or carries data; it does not, by itself, guarantee traceability or an accurate product record.
Start with one decision and an owner
Consider an illustrative chilled-food retailer wanting colleagues to investigate products approaching their expiry date. This is a proposed scenario, not an SCP client result. The team should first establish where the date originates, which systems retain it, how it remains associated with the physical stock and who decides the next action.
If the business cannot distinguish batches in the relevant stock record, richer data on the pack may not resolve that gap. The design may require a process change, an interface change, or a narrower initial ambition.
- Define the decision: an alert, a sale restriction or an investigation are different requirements.
- Name the data owner and the operational decision owner.
- Record which supplier, product and store combinations the initial scope covers.
- Agree a safe fallback for unreadable symbols, missing dates and unavailable services.
Test a journey, not just a successful scan
SCP would turn the decision into explicit acceptance criteria and test cases. Include both symbol types during coexistence, damaged labels, an unknown product, a returned item and inconsistent information between systems. Confirm the expected result with business users before testing.
Measure baseline and pilot performance using the same definitions: failed scans, manual interventions, time to investigate an exception and accuracy of the resulting action. Set thresholds before reviewing the results. A passing technical demonstration should not substitute for operational acceptance or a supported business case.
Keep rollout conditional on evidence, with a named support owner and a documented recovery route. Changes to labelling or product safety processes also need the client's relevant specialists.
A useful next step
Ask your team: which decision would improve if reliable information travelled with the product, and what prevents that decision today? SCP's Inventory and Service Improvement work can help frame the operating question. A discovery workshop can agree the scope, handovers and evidence needed before selecting a solution. Our requirements guide and testing guide provide related discussion points.
Sources and evidence notes
- GS1, 2D Barcodes at Retail Point-of-Sale Implementation Guideline, release 1.1.0, ratified December 2025. Standards implementation guidance; not adoption or financial-outcome evidence.
- GS1, 2D Barcode Playbook for Retail POS Host and Backend Systems, release 1.0.1, May 2026. Technical guidance; no client benefit figures inferred.
- GS1 Healthcare and Deloitte, One Product, One Barcode, November 2024. Commissioned healthcare readiness study. Only publisher-indexed foreword/summary accessible; no sample statistics or retail extrapolations used.
Research reviewed 26 October 2026. Practical recommendations and illustrative scenario are SCP interpretation. No client outcomes or guaranteed savings asserted.