EPS versus corrugated is often discussed as if one material should win by default. In seafood, that is the wrong starting point.

The right question is not “Which material is better?” It is “Which packaging system performs better for this product, this route, this temperature profile and this operating model?” Some chilled applications still suit EPS very well. Some projects clearly benefit from corrugated. Some businesses need a phased or hybrid approach instead of a clean break.

That may sound less dramatic than a material war, but it is a much better way to make decisions. Seafood packaging is too operationally important to be chosen as a gesture.

If you are considering a change, use packaging insights as context — then move the conversation from opinion to testing.

Do not start with material ideology. Start with the route.

A switch can look obvious in a presentation and become much less obvious in the warehouse.

That is because the box is only one part of the system. In seafood logistics, performance depends on how temperature is maintained, how wet the environment is, how the product is packed, how long the pallet stays under load and what happens to the packaging at the destination. If you ignore those variables, you end up comparing marketing claims instead of real packaging solutions.

A practical review should begin with five plain questions:

1. Is the product fresh, chilled or frozen?
2. Is the cold maintained mainly by the box, by the product state, by ice or by route control?
3. Does the outer pack face direct moisture or mostly condensation?
4. How demanding is the stacking and storage profile?
5. What happens to the packaging after use in the destination market?

Those answers usually tell you whether the switch is straightforward, risky or worth testing only on selected flows first.

Where EPS often remains strong

A balanced comparison should admit this openly: EPS has real strengths in seafood logistics.

It is widely understood in the market, familiar to many operators and naturally associated with thermal performance. In wet, chilled applications, it can feel operationally safe because the category has been built around it for years. Where the packaging itself plays a major role in temperature stability, the decision to move away from EPS deserves careful technical justification, not pressure from a trend.

EPS may still be hard to beat when:

• the application depends heavily on thermal insulation from the box itself,
• the route is very wet and handling conditions are rough,
• the customer is deeply standardized around existing EPS flows,
• or the cost of product spoilage would dwarf any savings elsewhere.

Ignoring those strengths does not make a corrugated proposal more credible. It makes it less trustworthy.

Where corrugated can create operational and commercial gains

Corrugated gains attention for good reasons too — but, again, not for every case.

In the right seafood application, corrugated can offer meaningful advantages:

• better inbound logistics because cases can often be shipped and stored flat,
• more efficient use of warehouse space before packing,
• broader structural flexibility for product fit and pallet logic,
• clearer printing and branding possibilities,
• and easier alignment with fibre-based recycling streams where the downstream system supports it.

The space argument is especially important in high-volume operations. A material that ships flat can change storage economics, handling rhythm and replenishment planning. That does not automatically outweigh thermal or wet-use considerations, but it absolutely belongs in the business case.

Corrugated can also make more sense when the outer pack is not the main temperature barrier. If the cold chain is maintained through product state, cooling elements, route control or wrapped pallet logic, the comparison becomes less about insulation alone and more about total packaging performance.

Corrugated is not a magic substitute either

A switch fails when people assume corrugated will behave well simply because it is “the sustainable option.”

In seafood applications, corrugated still has to be engineered properly. Moisture exposure, load path, closure logic, fit and testing all matter. A poor corrugated design can turn a reasonable material choice into a bad logistics choice.

This is where many projects go wrong. The team compares a mature EPS system against an immature corrugated sample. Then the test says “corrugated doesn’t work” when the truth is closer to “this corrugated design was not developed enough yet.”

That is why the real comparison should be: existing EPS system versus correctly developed corrugated system. If you are asking for samples, it usually makes more sense to discuss custom packaging for your product than to ask for a generic “corrugated replacement.”

What to test before you switch

A serious material comparison should include at least the following checkpoints.

1) Temperature profile

Do not assume that “cold chain” means the same thing for every route. Measure what happens to the product and the pack during the actual journey: packing, storage, loading, transport, unloading and possible waiting time. If the box plays a direct role in maintaining temperature, this test becomes critical.

2) Moisture and leak exposure

Assess the real moisture load, not the imagined one. Is the case exposed to meltwater? Splash? Condensation only? Repeated humid storage? A material that looks fine in a dry test area may behave very differently in a wet route.

3) Compression and stacking

Compare pallet behavior, not only one sample box. Look at bottom-layer compression, stability over time and performance after cold storage. If the load pattern is inconsistent, the material comparison will be distorted.

4) Handling and impact

Watch how the pack behaves in the human part of the route. Does it move cleanly? Does it keep shape during lifting, turning and loading? Does the change create awkward handling or extra care requirements?

5) Erection speed and line fit

A packaging switch that slows the operation can erase other gains surprisingly fast. Measure erection, packing and closing time. In some projects, the winning solution is the one that reduces friction for the team, not the one that looks best in a board sample comparison.

6) Storage cube and inbound logistics

This is where corrugated can change the economics quickly. Compare how much space each format occupies before use, how often replenishment is needed and how easy it is to handle at volume.

7) End-of-life reality

Do not discuss recyclability as an abstract moral category. Ask the practical question: what will actually happen to this packaging in the destination market? If you cannot answer that, the sustainability argument is still incomplete.

Fresh, chilled and frozen routes may point to different answers

One reason these debates become noisy is that people treat seafood as one uniform category.

A fresh fish route packed with ice is not the same as frozen sealed portions on a stable export pallet. In the first case, the outer pack may be deeply entangled with moisture and temperature management. In the second, the discussion may shift more toward stacking, cube efficiency and handling predictability.

A useful rule of thumb is this:

• if the box itself is carrying a larger share of the thermal burden, the switch becomes more technically sensitive;
• if the cold chain is supported primarily by other parts of the system, corrugated is easier to evaluate on broader operational merits;
• and if the route is mixed or changing, a phased trial is usually smarter than a blanket decision.

When a phased rollout makes more sense than a full switch

Packaging changes are easier to defend when they are tested on a flow that can teach you something.

A sensible phased rollout usually starts with one SKU, one customer, one route or one operating condition where the business case is easiest to evaluate. In many companies, that first pilot sits naturally inside a broader packaging optimization review rather than a stand-alone materials debate. That allows the team to compare:

• handling performance,
• damage rate,
• packing speed,
• storage impact,
• and destination-side acceptance.

If the result is strong, you scale. If not, you adjust the design or keep the existing material where it is still the better tool. That is not indecision. It is disciplined implementation.

How to compare total cost honestly

Unit price is not enough. Neither is a broad sustainability claim.

A proper comparison should include:

• packaging purchase cost,
• inbound transport and storage cost before packing,
• labor time on the line,
• pallet density and freight impact,
• product damage or spoilage risk,
• rework and complaint handling,
• and end-of-life cost or convenience where relevant.

Sometimes EPS remains the better answer for a specific route. Sometimes corrugated clearly wins. Sometimes the result is mixed: corrugated for one part of the portfolio, EPS for another. That kind of answer may be less satisfying ideologically, but it is usually more profitable operationally.

What to prepare before the first call

For a practical first review, gather:

• product type and whether it is fresh, chilled or frozen,
• current pack dimensions and gross load,
• information about ice, liners or other cooling logic,
• route details: storage, transport duration, handling steps and destination,
• photos of current pallets and any known failure points,
• the main reason for considering the switch: cost, space, sustainability, customer demand or standardization.

Final note

A switch from EPS to corrugated should not be treated as a branding exercise. It should be treated as an engineering and operations decision with commercial consequences. The right answer is the one that protects the product, supports the route and makes sense for the business — not the one that sounds cleanest in a meeting.

Related seafood articles

• cold-chain-ready seafood packaging solutions
• strength, moisture and stacking explained
• reduce damage and packaging costs in seafood logistics
• food safety, documentation and delivery reliability