Related Work

1. Supplement | HBS Case Collection | June 2017 (Revised August 2017)

   Making Target the Target: Boycotts and Corporate Political Activity (B)

   Nien-hê Hsieh and Victor Wu

   Supplements the (A) Case.

   Keywords: campaign finance reform; corporate accountability; corporate political activity; lobbying; LGBTQ; campaign contributions; campaign finance; retail; shareholder activism; Public Opinion; Social Issues; Corporate Social Responsibility and Impact; Mission and Purpose; Problems and Challenges; Laws and Statutes; Rights; Crisis Management; Risk Management; Media; Political Elections; Taxation; Corporate Accountability; Values and Beliefs; Fairness; Diversity; Customers; Communication; Business and Government Relations; Retail Industry; United States;

   Citation:

   Hsieh, Nien-hê, and Victor Wu. "Making Target the Target: Boycotts and Corporate Political Activity (B)." Harvard Business School Supplement 317-131, June 2017. (Revised August 2017.)  View Details

   CiteView DetailsPurchase

   Related

2. Teaching Note | HBS Case Collection | March 2018

   Making Target the Target: Boycotts and Corporate Political Activity (A) and (B)

   Nien-hê Hsieh and Victor Wu

   Through the challenges facing Target, the case examines the ways in which corporations can become involved in political and legislative debates and processes, ranging from campaign contributions to lobbying. In 2016, Target CEO Brian Cornell must determine how to respond to the debate over North Carolina's recently signed law, commonly known as "HB2," that invalidated LGBT non-discrimination ordinances at the local level. In contrast to other organizations, Target did not threaten to leave the state. However, its public statement in support of LGBT rights prompted a boycott against its stores. Adding to the difficulty was the fact that Target was caught on the other side of the debate in 2010 in one of the earliest high-profile controversies resulting from the Citizens United ruling. Target had contributed to a SuperPAC supporting business friendly candidates. As one of the candidate's opposition to same-sex marriage became well publicized, Target faced a consumer boycott as well as a shareholder proposal to change its policies on political contributions. The case covers current campaign finance regulations as they relate to business as well as Target's lobbying activities regarding online sales tax legislation. Teaching Note for HBS Nos. 317-113 and 317-131.

   Keywords: Public Opinion; Social Issues; Corporate Social Responsibility and Impact; Mission and Purpose; Problems and Challenges; Laws and Statutes; Rights; Crisis Management; Risk Management; Media; Political Elections; Taxation; Corporate Accountability; Values and Beliefs; Fairness; Diversity; Customers; Communication; Business and Government Relations; Retail Industry; United States;

   Citation:

   Hsieh, Nien-hê, and Victor Wu. "Making Target the Target: Boycotts and Corporate Political Activity (A) and (B)." Harvard Business School Teaching Note 318-123, March 2018.  View Details

   CiteView DetailsPurchase

   Related

3. Case | HBS Case Collection | April 2017 (Revised August 2018)

   Making Target the Target: Boycotts and Corporate Political Activity

   Nien-hê Hsieh and Victor Wu

   Through the challenges facing Target, the case examines ways in which corporations can become involved in political and legislative debates and processes, ranging from campaign contributions to lobbying to political activism. In 2016, Target CEO Brian Cornell must determine how to respond to the debate over North Carolina's recently signed law, commonly known as "HB2," that invalidated LGBT non-discrimination ordinances at the local level. In contrast to other organizations, Target did not threaten to leave the state. However, its public statement in support of LGBT rights prompted a boycott against its stores. Adding to the difficulty was the fact that Target was caught on the other side of the debate in 2010 in one of the earliest high-profile controversies resulting from the Supreme Court Citizens United ruling. Target had contributed to a super PAC supporting business friendly candidates. As one of the candidate's opposition to same-sex marriage became well publicized, Target faced a consumer boycott as well as a shareholder proposal to change its policies on political contributions. The case covers current campaign finance regulations as they relate to business as well as Target's lobbying activities regarding online sales tax legislation.

   Keywords: boycott; corporate accountability; corporate political activity; lobbying; LGBTQ; campaign contributions; campaign finance; retail; shareholder activism; Public Opinion; Social Issues; Corporate Social Responsibility and Impact; Mission and Purpose; Problems and Challenges; Laws and Statutes; Rights; Crisis Management; Risk Management; Media; Political Elections; Taxation; Corporate Accountability; Values and Beliefs; Fairness; Diversity; Customers; Communication; Business and Government Relations; Retail Industry; United States;

   Citation:

   Hsieh, Nien-hê, and Victor Wu. "Making Target the Target: Boycotts and Corporate Political Activity." Harvard Business School Case 317-113, April 2017. (Revised August 2018.)  View Details

   CiteView DetailsEducatorsPurchase

   Related