Dear Editor,

As expected, professionally offended citizens on Twitter are irate that Wisynco has dismissed 100 employees in response to the styrofoam ban. Many are asserting that Wisynco had ample time to create an alternative solution; therefore, workers would benefit from retooling, thus preventing job losses.

Few people, however, are noting that cost-benefit analyses must guide public policies. Whenever the costs of proposals outweigh the benefits such recommendations ought to be dismissed. Yet, this is rarely the case, because this Administration, like its foreign counterparts, are willing to construct policies on the sentiments of misguided environmentalists.

Banning an item is not a solution; it would be more logical to launch a competition challenging small businesses to discover innovative processes to eliminate waste.

But, despite the rantings of critics, the styrofoam ban may be the motivation that Wisynco needs to spur efficiency.

In a recent interview, chairman of the company William Mahfood opined that: “We are actually coming out of the packaging business… I think, actually, we will probably end up becoming more profitable as a company, because the salespeople will focus more on our beverage business and the other products which are more profitable.”

So, though the logic behind the ban is misguided, in the long term it will produce a more dynamic company.

In contrast to popular notions, businesses are most effective when they increase value by providing the demands of the market. Recommending that companies adopt eco-friendly products is futile, since they tend to be costly and less efficient. Smart entrepreneurs cater to the market; they will not create unprofitable corporate plans to please deluded activists.

Citizens must repudiate the fad of corporate social responsibility. Companies only have a responsibility to their shareholders and customers. When they act in the public interest they are only being tactful. On the other hand, Wisynco’s decision is a reminder to puerile environmentalists that their “feel good” policies are expensive.

Lipton Matthews

lo_matthews@yahoo.com