There are innovations that immediately stand out because they take the form of a new machine, faster software, or a more efficient installation. And then there are others that reveal their value in a more subtle way: they change how people work, make decisions, and trust a process. In the world of industrial laundry, RFID clearly belongs to this second category. Its impact lies not only in the ability to identify a garment, but in coherently connecting the collection of soiled laundry, processing, shipping, distribution, use, and return. This is where traceability stops being a technical detail and becomes operational infrastructure.
To truly understand this, it is enough to compare two realities that, on paper, seem very far apart. On one side, Lavans, a historic independent Dutch laundry, awarded the Global Best Practices Award in 2022 and recognized for two years as the “best laundry in the world.” On the other, Lavadero Berazategui, an Argentine laundry founded in 1987, specialized in the healthcare and industrial sectors, with facilities of 5,000 square meters, 150 employees, and a capacity of approximately 30 tons per day, awarded the Global Best Practices Award in 2020 as the 8th best laundry in the world and the first in its category in Argentina. Two different industrial cultures, two different markets, two almost opposite worlds. And yet, when looking closely at traceability, the point of arrival is surprisingly similar.
This is precisely the interesting point. The issue does not concern the two markets themselves, but the fact that very distant contexts arrive at similar conclusions: when RFID traceability is integrated throughout the entire garment lifecycle, the governability of the service increases. And when the system is well designed, geographical, cultural, and even sectoral differences matter less than one might expect.
Lavans represents well a Northern European model based on process, continuity, and service quality. Lavadero Berazategui, on the other hand, brings the perspective of a South American reality with high operational intensity, deeply rooted in the healthcare sector. In between, there are also two different application worlds: on one side industry, as in the case of Agristo, where ABG Systems reports a 60% reduction in garments in circulation and a 90% reduction in calls and emails between customer and laundry; on the other, healthcare, as in the case of the Sanatorio Finochietto in Buenos Aires, where RFID traceability was used to track uniforms and linen, reduce manual counting, and improve control of the washing cycle. Contexts change, but the grammar of the system remains the same.
For this reason as well, ABG Systems remains in the background of the article, not as a commercial protagonist, but as a privileged observer of a dynamic that is already evident: automated management of professional textiles truly works when it connects the laundry and the point of use within the same information logic. With experience from systems active in 24 countries and more than one million users served every day, the transferability of the model on a global scale becomes clear. Lavans and Lavadero Berazategui, in this sense, are not exceptions. They are two very illustrative examples of a broader trend.
Why has RFID become so important for an industrial laundry?
The most direct answer comes from Luis Palermo, director of Lavadero Berazategui. For him, the primary value of RFID is very simple: it allows the production manager to stop “guessing”. It means not wasting time on manual counts, incomplete reconstructions, or emergencies managed by intuition, but working with real data: knowing which garments have entered, which are in process, and which must leave to guarantee the service. In this view, technology is not decoration. It is operational control.
Tijn Heerkens from Lavans uses more concise language but reaches a very similar point. Huge volumes of garments pass through a laundry and each follows its own path. The possibility of performing mass readings at different moments in the flow changes the quality of visibility: it becomes clearer what is where, and when.
For the customer, this clarity translates into a concrete sense of security. In other words, the value of RFID is not “reading a tag”, but making the process readable.
Where does the value of traceability really begin: inside the laundry or at the customer site?
The most correct answer is: in both places, but in different ways.
Inside the laundry, traceability improves control of flows: soiled intake, sorting, batch preparation, folding, shipping. This is the level where data helps reduce internal opacity and better manage priorities and production capacity. But the real leap in quality comes when the data does not stop at the plant perimeter and continues to the point of use.
This is where the reflection becomes more interesting. When the garment is linked to a distribution point, a withdrawal, a dirty return, a return into the cycle, RFID stops being an identification technology and becomes a continuous structure. The garment is no longer simply washed and returned: it is managed within a readable, measurable, verifiable system. And it is precisely this step that changes the relationship between laundry and customer.
Does RFID really reduce losses, missing garments, and parallel stock?
Luis Palermo has a very clear position: when the system is well implemented, losses decrease and so does what is often called parallel stock, meaning garments retained, hidden, or accumulated “for safety” in departments. At that point, the nature of complaints also changes: it is no longer a generic “we’re missing garments”, but a verifiable anomaly. Data does not magically eliminate the problem, but it finally makes it visible.
Tijn Heerkens, however, introduces an important nuance: data alone does not automatically generate insights or actions. It is an important reminder, because it avoids superficial enthusiasm. RFID reduces uncertainty, but it does not replace management. To turn data into results, processes, rules, and operational consistency are needed. It is a clarification that is worth its weight in gold, because it restores technology to its real role: not a shortcut, but an enabler.
What changes day by day in the management of refill, sizes, returns, and user behavior?
According to Palermo, a lot changes. Refill stops being intuitive and is based on real consumption. Size availability improves because the system shows what is actually used. Returns become more orderly. And user behavior also tends to change when traceability is concrete, visible, and linked to clear rules. In practice, the system removes room for arbitrariness and gives it back to predictability.
Heerkens points out: RFID tracking alone does not automatically change daily operations. What really does are the distribution and return systems that use that data to regulate refill, availability, and returns. It is a decisive distinction, because it explains why some projects produce deep effects while others stop at good theoretical traceability. Data alone is not enough. But when it meets a well-designed process, then it changes everyday work.
What do a laundry serving the food industry and one operating in healthcare have in common?
At first glance, almost nothing. In food processing, the focus seems to be efficiency, availability, stock reduction, and service fluidity. In healthcare, continuity, safety, proper garment treatment, and the need to avoid uncontrolled exits or returns also come into play. But when you look closely at the system, a deep convergence emerges: in both cases, value comes from the ability to transform an opaque flow into a readable flow.
This is where the Agristo case and the Sanatorio Finochietto case truly connect. In the first, the benefit is measured in industrial efficiency and reduced friction between customer and laundry. In the second, it is seen in the ability to track garments, reduce manual work, and ensure that the washing cycle has been correctly executed. The sector changes, but the principle does not: less uncertainty, more control, more trust in the system.
When a system really works, do geographical and cultural differences still matter?
Yes, they matter. But less than expected.
They matter because each market has different timelines, expectations, habits, and maturity levels. They matter because Northern Europe has a long tradition of process standardization, while South America often develops a very concrete capacity for operational adaptation. They matter because industry and healthcare do not speak the same language. But the comparison between Lavans and Lavadero Berazategui suggests that there is something that matters more: project quality.
When reading points are consistent, when distribution is linked to real consumption, when returns are tracked and reporting is understandable, then the model holds. It holds in Northern Europe and in South America. It holds in the food industry and in healthcare. This is perhaps the most interesting lesson from the comparison: when the system works, data becomes a common language. And a common language reduces ambiguity, waste, conflicts, and misunderstandings far more than any theoretical promise.
In one sentence: what is RFID today for the laundry sector?
Tijn Heerkens’ answer is essential: track & trace technology for the laundry industry.
Luis Palermo’s is more direct: with RFID, the “I’m missing garments” problem ends, because data and control appear.
Two different formulations, almost mirror-like. One more sober, the other more immediate. But in the end they express the same idea: traceability has value when it removes uncertainty and restores solidity to the system.
The real lesson
Perhaps this is the strongest conclusion to take away. At a time when every market tends to be described as a case on its own, the comparison between these two laundries suggests something different: when the process architecture is right, data crosses cultures, geographies, and sectors.
And at that point, the issue is no longer only technological. It becomes almost social: it means speaking a common language between laundry and customer, between production and use, between those who deliver a service and those who depend on it every day. It means reducing ambiguity, increasing trust, and ultimately making the system work better.
And this is probably the most convincing proof that, when the project is solid, everything falls into place.
