The Nature Conservancy (TNC) was one of the largest conservation organizations in the world; its mission was to "to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends." Over time, TNC had expanded its mission to include advocating for sustainable water-management practices, and its numerous water specialists had advised corporations, water ministries, legislatures, and many other organizations. TNC was constantly exploring new ways of advocating sustainable water use and weighing its options to engage new opportunities. Brian Richter, a veteran scientist for TNC who had led its water market strategy for the past few years, was convinced that water markets could be attractive for the market-friendly TNC. But he wondered how TNC could integrate water markets into its water strategy while staying true to its legacy and mission. This case includes an interview with TNC's Brian Richter about some of the tools TNC had at its disposal to realize its conservationist objectives.

The focus of the case is on understanding firms’ campaign contributions and lobbying strategies — and their limits. The case centers on controversy facing Target Corporation in 2010. In the wake of the Citizens United decision, Target was one of the first companies to take advantage of their newly acquired freedom to use corporate treasury money (rather than money in a corporate-linked PAC) to make a contribution to an independent expenditure committee (aka “Super PAC”). <br><br>The company decided to make a donation to Minnesota Forward, a political action committee that had the primary goal of supporting job creation within the state. Pro-gay rights activists discovered that Minnesota Forward primarily backed Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, who had previously supported traditional marriage. After this, Target, despite its liberal and socially responsible positioning, was subject to harsh criticism and activist protests as its donation was viewed as a contradiction to its social policies.<br><br>The events put CEO Gregg Steinhafel in a position to revisit the company’s policies towards political activities. Should there be constraints on what the firm would do on the political front? If so, what should those be?

The El Coyote Mexican Café, more commonly known as El Coyote, is a family-owned restaurant located in Los Angeles, California. The restaurant faced criticism from pro-gay rights activists after the manager (the daughter of the owner) made a personal donation to support California Ballot Proposition 8, which activists associated with the restaurant rather than the individual. The case transpires over an eight-day period from November 4, 2008, which was the election day when the ballot proposition passed, to November 12, 2008, which was when the manager held an open breakfast at El Coyote to publicly discuss the issue. The central tension in the case revolves around how the manager’s donation to support a measure that legally defines marriage as “between a man and a woman” has gained the restaurant unwanted attention despite being a personal contribution separate from and not endorsed by the business. The goal of the case is to challenge students to think about tensions firms face in managing the external environment of their businesses in the face of both: 1) campaign finance and election issues; and (2) activists who may not understand all of the underlying facts.