One of the criticisms of Broadway is that tickets are too expensive, but to encourage a new generation to enjoy Broadway, many theaters offer scaled prices, including discounts for students.
Regarding the sale of 50 tickets for $300 each -- this would depend upon the size of the venue. Some limited exchanges like this could fund more, less well-known groups to come to campus under the umbrella of the activities committee, but this practice should not dominate the business model of a university setting. Even in private, strictly for-profit enterprises, gouging is a serious issue of concern. Gas stations and companies that raise the price of gas prohibitively high because they 'can' or convenience stores in a city that raise the price of milk past a certain point in New York City are fined, because of the vital necessity of these products and the tendency for the product to be priced artificially high as a result. Although the tickets are not necessities like food and transportation, students are paying for an education, which includes primary access to various venues on campus as well as classes (hence, the existence of student discounts and privileges).
Finally, in the case of some companies, like drug companies that price drugs artificially high, there is again a question of taking advantage of people's necessity and desperation that demands certain moral action to lower prices. Finally, if people are alienated from seeing shows at the college, just as if society is deprived of necessities like food and medicine, ultimately all of the community is harmed, and these affects will harm the long-term health of the business, even if the financial short-term health is improved.
Question
Some people like gambling in Las Vegas. They are prepared to put their resources to support businesses that are probably not eco-friendly (massive energy use to keep the desert cool; water diverted to maintain golf...
The businesses could argue that they are morally neutral, and only responding to customer demand. Now, Elkington wants businesses to be more accountable for their environmental practices. Does it matter that a highly profitable company (e.g., a casino) could print a true account of its activities and suffer no societal sanction or penalty? Should we regulate them on a societal level? Should they be more environmentally conscious?
No company operates in a vacuum. Yes, one could argue it is up to the business to fulfill the unethical need of the consumer. But in the long-term, if all enterprises ignore the consequences of environmental damage, then everyone will suffer in business. Consumer demand for massive amounts of air conditioning, fuel inefficient vehicles, and other products that leave a huge carbon footprint affects the greater physical well-being of society, and also other businesses that must deal with air pollution, escalating fuel costs, and the unhealthy citizens that tax the healthcare system of the nation and other private enterprises.
There is no such thing as a morally neutral company or policy without some societal impact. Yes, government can try to be restrained in its regulation whenever possible, to ensure that free enterprise does its best to set prices fairly through supply and demand, and self-polices itself to avoid litigation in the civil courts. But beyond a certain point, regulation and a more holistic perspective is needed to regulate environmental damage. Also, if all businesses are subject to the same types of regulations regarding fuel emissions, polluting, and safety hazards, this will ultimately create a level playing field. Without regulations, companies that pay more out-of-pocket to meet superior standards for consumers must charge higher prices, and thus suffer a penalty for trying to do good, rather than not to harm the environment.
