While customers often appreciate companies that share their values, less is known about how they respond when businesses take explicit positions on politically divisive topics. This question has become particularly relevant as more firms face pressure to engage with social and political issues, often from their customer base and workforce. A recent study published in the Strategic Management Journal seeks to fill this gap by examining how individuals react to different forms of corporate political communication. It considers the impact of taking a clear ideological stance and the potential benefits of staying apolitical or remaining silent. The findings offer valuable guidance for businesses seeking to navigate these complex dynamics.
The research was conducted by Tommaso Bondi of Cornell University, Vanessa C. Burbano of Columbia Business School, and Fabrizio Dell’Acqua of Harvard Business School. The team sought to better understand how companies choose to engage, or not engage, in political discourse to influence public perception. Importantly, the researchers wanted to differentiate between firms that explicitly declare a neutral, apolitical stance and those that remain silent—two approaches that, while seemingly similar, may elicit quite different responses from the public.
As Burbano explains, this distinction is critical for corporate strategists: “It’s not necessarily the same for a company to explicitly say, ‘We’re not going to engage in politics,’ versus simply staying silent. These are potential strategies, but they may be interpreted differently by the public, depending on the context.” This subtle difference can significantly affect brand reputation, particularly when consumers increasingly expect transparency and authenticity from the companies they support.
To test these ideas, the researchers conducted two survey-based vignette experiments between November 2020 and January 2021, a period marked by intense political polarisation in the United States, including the presidential election and the Capitol riots. The first experiment manipulated respondents’ perceptions of hypothetical companies by varying the firms’ expected political leanings (left, right, or centrist) and their chosen communication strategies. Whether they took a clear political stance, explicitly declared neutrality, or decided to remain silent. In the second experiment, the researchers added another layer, exploring whether firms’ stances were accompanied by promises of financial support, potentially amplifying the impact of their political messaging.
The results of the studies were revealing. For deeply polarising issues, the researchers found that companies adopting overtly partisan stances risked a backlash that generally outweighed any positive response from like-minded consumers. This effect was powerful for firms perceived as traditionally neutral, where even a mild political statement could sharply alter public perception. In contrast, companies that communicated a deliberately apolitical stance generally received more positive evaluations, especially among Republicans and Independents, suggesting that a clear, nonpartisan message can be a safer choice for brands hoping to maintain broad appeal.
However, the researchers also discovered that staying silent does not necessarily preserve a company’s neutral image. Bondi notes that context is critical here: “Silence might not always be perceived as neutral. If you’re a tech company in Silicon Valley or an oil firm in Texas, people may still assume a political alignment based on your industry or geography.” This means that, in some cases, explicitly stating an apolitical position can be more effective in maintaining a balanced brand reputation than saying nothing.
Interestingly, the study also found that when it comes to less polarising issues — where public opinion is more homogeneous — firms can benefit from aligning their messaging with the majority view, especially if a financial commitment backs this stance. This approach can strengthen positive perceptions, as it signals conviction and a willingness to act on stated values, reinforcing the message’s authenticity.
Overall, the study’s findings suggest a cautious path forward for companies navigating the increasingly fraught terrain of political communication. For many businesses, explicitly adopting an apolitical stance may offer the best path to preserving customer loyalty and brand trust in a divided marketplace. As Burbano reflects, “If there’s a way to shift public perception from viewing your company as ideologically aligned to one that prioritises customer welfare and broader societal good, our research suggests that this is likely the most sustainable long-term strategy.”
More information: Tommaso Bondi et al, When (not) to talk politics in business: Experimental evidence, Strategic Management Journal. DOI: 10.1002/smj.3684
Journal information: Strategic Management Journal Provided by Strategic Management Society