Staff Shortages and Automation in the Supply Chain: The Decision Isn’t Black or White

Melina Psarra, 29/10/2025

In the supply chain industry, daily operations are constantly shifting, and one of the most pressing challenges in recent years has been staff shortages. Companies struggle to find employees with the right experience, willingness to learn, and resilience to the pace of operations. At the same time, technology continues to advance, providing automation solutions that promise speed, accuracy, and reduced operational costs. This naturally leads to the question:

Should we invest in automation, or should we systematically work on becoming a more attractive employer in order to attract and retain people?

What’s important to understand is that this decision is neither emotional nor a matter of “trend.” There is no need to automate simply because the market is moving in that direction, nor to rely solely on human labor because “that’s how it has always been done.” The decision is fundamentally one of data, cost, demand, and strategic direction.

Supply chain operations are highly seasonal. There are peak periods when the volume of orders increases suddenly—during holidays, sales campaigns, and, particularly in Greece, periods of increased tourism that drive higher consumption in certain regions. In these cases, hiring temporary staff can be a logical and economical solution. Conversely, if someone chooses to invest in automation solely to cover these peak periods, there is a significant risk that the investment will never pay off. Automation is a major expense, and to be justified, it must be utilized consistently and for a substantial portion of the year—not just for three or four months.

On the other hand, investing in people is not just a question of payroll. The cost of sourcing, training, and retaining employees can be high, but often yields indirect benefits. A company that becomes an attractive employer gains something crucial: stability. When people stay, learn, grow, and gain experience, productivity increases without necessarily increasing costs. Low employee turnover is one of the most undervalued forms of return on investment.

However, a key distinction must be made: people offer flexibility, adaptability, the ability to handle exceptions, and real-time adjustments. Automation offers stability, accuracy, and predictability. If a company’s workflow is repetitive and standardized, automation can be a very strong solution. But if the daily reality is constantly changing, orders vary, and conditions are dynamic, human flexibility may be irreplaceable.

This is why the right decision cannot be based on assumptions or intuition. It must come from measurement: the cost of each option, the frequency and intensity of workload fluctuations, the expected payback period of any investment, and the company’s ability to attract staff. And, of course, the level of predictability in the business environment.

At the end of the day, the question is not “people or automation.” It is “where does each make sense?”
The optimal approach may very well be a combination: automation where the work is stable and repeatable, and human labor where judgment, adaptability, and coordination are essential. Temporary staffing during peak periods may also play a key role in maintaining economic viability throughout the year.

What matters most is this: the decision must be driven by data, not impressions.