Companies are increasingly expected to weigh in on politically polarizing issues, from voting rights to LGBTQ+ legislation. But not all do — and for some, silence carries little risk. New research from Wharton academics finds that backlash tends to follow only when companies are expected to speak out. For those firms, staying quiet may invite the very criticism they hoped to avoid.
The paper, currently under peer review, is co-authored by Wharton associate management professor Tyler Wry and PhD candidate Christopher Bruno. They found that companies are most likely to be criticized when people both expect them to speak out and believe they have a responsibility to do so. And when those companies respond only after being called out, they often end up facing even more criticism — from both sides of the political aisle.
The findings offer a data-backed warning to corporate America: Expectations matter, and silence has a cost. “If a company has a history of speaking out, or visible cues, like a diverse leadership team, people expect it to engage. That’s predictive. But there’s also a normative side: When a company has power, influence, or proximity to an issue, it’s seen as morally obligated to respond,” Wry explained.
Backlash Against Georgia’s Election Integrity Act
The researchers analyzed more than 18,000 critical social media posts — and more than 30,000 company mentions — directed at Fortune 1000 firms during the controversy surrounding the 2021 Georgia Election Integrity Act, a law criticized for restricting voting access.
Using data from March and April 2021, the team tracked user sentiment on Twitter (now X), corporate statements, and how criticism evolved in response, before and after firms chose to speak out.
They paired the social media data with firm-level information on political donations via corporate political action committees, disclosures on the gender and ethnic composition of their workforce, past public statements on racial justice, and the company’s employment and lobbying presence in Georgia.
“When a company delays, clearly has the power to act, and then offers a vague response, people really hate that. It rings false, hollow, inauthentic — and the companies do much worse for it.”— Tyler Wry
This firm-level data was used to calculate how likely the public was to expect each company to engage. Firms that people anticipated to speak out were more likely to be criticized if they stayed silent. A moderate rise in these expectations based on past behavior (“predictive expectations”) was linked to about a 5% rise in criticism.
But the effect was stronger for corporations the public believed had a responsibility to respond (“prescriptive expectations”), which saw a 19% increase in criticism. When both types of expectations were high, backlash grew sharply — a typical increase in both was linked to about a 43% rise in the amount of blowback a company received.
High-profile Georgia-based firms such as airline Delta, beverage giant Coca-Cola, and retailer Home Depot were frequently singled out in early public backlash.
The study found that the majority of early criticism came from individual users, most with modest followings, but pressure intensified over time. As the controversy grew, activist groups such as the Lincoln Project amplified criticism of corporations, while other actors, including religious leaders, publicly called for boycotts.
“There’s plenty of research showing the risks of large-scale activism. But our work shows that even without coordination, if a company fails to engage as people expect, distributed criticism can still pose a serious reputational threat,” said Wry.
For Corporate Statements, Timing and Authenticity Matter
While early criticism came mainly from left-leaning voices, companies that responded only after facing pressure triggered fresh attacks from the right.
“It comes down to expectations being violated on both sides,” said Bruno. “For critics, a delayed response feels like too little, too late. Meanwhile, those who were comfortable with the silence now resent that the company has taken a stance at all.”
Companies that responded early, before social media criticism gained momentum, faced less backlash. And those that backed their statements with concrete action were better shielded from criticism than those offering vague or symbolic support.
“For critics, a delayed response feels like too little, too late. Meanwhile, those who were comfortable with the silence now resent that the company has taken a stance at all.”— Christopher Bruno
Delivery group UPS, for example, issued a statement on April 1 pledging funding for nonpartisan groups that support voter registration and engagement.
“Talk is cheap, and it’s easy to see talk as cynical,” said Wry. “When a company delays, clearly has the power to act, and then offers a vague response, people really hate that. It rings false, hollow, inauthentic — and the companies do much worse for it.”
Managing Stakeholders and Public Expectations
The researchers argue that these findings carry broader significance beyond the Georgia case. As new state-level laws on issues ranging from reproductive rights to environmental policy enter the spotlight, firms will increasingly face pressure to define their stance. That puts added weight on stakeholder management — and on understanding when silence becomes riskier than speaking out.
“Some researchers ask whether companies engage because an issue gains media attention, while others wonder if corporate engagement itself makes the issue more salient in the zeitgeist,” said Bruno. “It’s a compelling question for future research.”
For now, the study encourages companies to assess where they stand on the public’s expectation curve, before a crisis erupts. That means asking: Have we spoken on similar issues before? Are we seen as capable of making change? Is silence an option — or a provocation?
Visit Wharton’s Impact, Value, and Sustainable Business Initiative.
