Study Reveals Staying Neutral Trumps Taking Sides in Corporate Politics

In today’s polarized political landscape, businesses face mounting pressure to speak out on controversial issues, but new research suggests this might be a strategic misstep. A new study published in the Strategic Management Journal reveals that consumers generally prefer when companies explicitly declare political neutrality rather than taking partisan positions on divisive topics. These findings come at a critical time when executives increasingly find themselves navigating treacherous political waters that can significantly impact brand perception and consumer loyalty.

The comprehensive research, conducted between November 2020 and January 2021—during a particularly contentious period surrounding the U.S. presidential election and Capitol building events—provides valuable insights for business leaders grappling with whether to weigh in on polarizing issues or maintain political distance.

The Surprising Power of Declaring Neutrality

Perhaps the most compelling finding challenges conventional wisdom about corporate activism. While many executives believe staying silent is the safest option, the research demonstrates that explicitly declaring an apolitical stance can actually boost public perception, particularly when consumers already associate the company with leaning in one political direction.

“Silence may not be perceived as neutral,” explains Tommaso Bondi of Cornell University, one of the study’s co-authors. “If you’re a tech firm in California or an oil firm in Alaska, you might still be perceived as political, because there are prior assumptions made by individuals. In that case, it brings a benefit to the firm to just very clearly say, ‘We are absolutely indifferent between these two options.'”

This distinction between passive silence and actively declaring neutrality represents a crucial strategic choice that many businesses overlook. The research team—which also included Vanessa C. Burbano of Columbia University and Fabrizio Dell’Acqua of Harvard Business School—specifically designed their experiments to explore this nuance.

When Political Stances Backfire

Through careful experimental design, the researchers discovered that for issues with divided public opinion, taking a partisan stance in either direction typically results in negative overall perceptions. While those who agree with the stance respond positively, the negative reactions from those who disagree generally outweigh these benefits.

This effect becomes even more pronounced for companies previously perceived as politically neutral. In these cases, breaking that neutrality by taking a side can significantly damage consumer perception across the political spectrum.

The study also revealed that when companies back their political statements with financial commitments, it amplifies both positive and negative reactions—essentially raising the stakes of political positioning.

Key Findings for Business Leaders

• Explicitly stating political neutrality generally increases positive perceptions, especially among Republicans and Independents when the company is otherwise expected to lean left or right
• For polarizing issues with split opinions, partisan communications typically result in negative overall perceptions
• For less controversial issues with broad consensus, aligning with the majority view can be beneficial
• Financial commitments backing political stances intensify both positive and negative reactions
• Companies expected to be politically neutral face stronger backlash when taking unexpected partisan positions

Strategic Implications for Companies

The research provides a roadmap for executives navigating today’s politically charged business environment. How should companies respond when stakeholders demand they take political positions? When is silence golden, and when is it perceived as complicity?

“You could benefit from being perceived as apolitical,” Burbano notes. “If there is a way to adjust people’s perceptions from viewing you as a partisan, ideologically aligned company to one that is apolitical and focused on doing what’s best for its customers, our study suggests that that’s probably the best path forward.”

This distinction was central to the researchers’ approach. “That particular distinction was an important one to delineate,” Burbano explains. “It’s not necessarily the same for a company to explicitly say, ‘We’re not going to wade into politics,’ versus staying silent, [which are] potential strategic choices for firms.”

The researchers conducted two survey-based experiments, manipulating information about a hypothetical firm’s stance on political issues while varying company characteristics likely to influence participants’ expectations about the firm’s political leanings.

A Path Forward in Polarized Times

What emerges from this research is a clear message: in most cases involving divisive issues, consumers prefer that businesses focus on their products and services rather than wading into contentious political debates. The findings suggest that the old adage about avoiding politics in polite company may apply equally well to corporate communications.

For executives feeling pressure to stake out political positions, the data offers a compelling alternative. Rather than remaining passively silent (which consumers may interpret through their own political lens), companies can benefit from proactively declaring their commitment to political neutrality—especially when their industry or location might otherwise lead consumers to assume partisan leanings.

As the political landscape continues to evolve, this research provides timely guidance for business leaders seeking to navigate polarization while maintaining brand strength and consumer trust. In an era when political identity increasingly shapes consumer behavior, understanding when—and how—to address politics in business may prove to be a critical competitive advantage.