This article provides an empirical and theoretical analysis of how controversial firms deal with repugnance: the negative moral meaning attached to (some) their core activities. Existing studies have focused on the (un)desirability of repugnant markets or goods or the design of alternative institutions, but have not analyzed how firms manage existing repugnance. We identify three essential elements of the management of repugnance: 1) managing the size of the firm because other firms might not be willing to engage in contracts with the repugnant firm, 2) managing the scope of the product to ensure that the level of repugnance will not become too high and threaten the firm’s future and 3) managing the symbolic meaning of the good in order to decrease existing feelings of repugnance. We arrive at these three elements through a review of the existing scattered empirical studies of aspects of repugnance as well as two short case-studies. The first case-study details how MindGeek the mother company of Pornhub deals with the repugnance it faces and in particular how it had to integrate vertically in response to obstacles regarding funding, payment infrastructures and advertising. The second case-study analyzes how Sears Roebuck, the mail-order company, dealt with the moral opposition it faced from local shopkeepers in its first decades. This case demonstrates how repugnance, including racist sentiments, were mobilized in response to a new socially and economically disruptive company.