Ben & Jerry's voice on social issues has always been the backbone of its brand identity. The ice cream maker's recent court filing suggests it may also be a bone of contention between leadership and its parent company, Unilever.Charles Krupa/The Associated Press
Gus Carlson is a U.S.-based columnist for The Globe and Mail.
To the casual observer, it may seem like a tempest in a waffle cone.
But the latest volley in the years-old dispute between Ben & Jerry’s and its parent Unilever over the ice cream-maker’s progressive social activism points up a broader struggle many companies face in finding a comfortable and productive cultural balance between commercial focus and social conscience.
In the case of Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever, that balance has been elusive, especially in the last few years, when stakeholder activism has pushed many companies to take public positions on issues that have nothing to do with the products or services they sell.
Earlier this week, Ben & Jerry’s filed an amendment to an earlier complaint in Manhattan federal court alleging Unilever fired the ice cream company’s chief executive officer, David Stever, because of the brand’s support of progressive issues and his “commitment to Ben & Jerry’s Social Mission and Essential Brand Integrity … rather than any genuine concerns regarding his performance history.”
The complaint said the move was made without board approval, which violates the 2000 merger agreement between the companies. Unilever said it acted in line with the terms of the agreement.
Beyond the legal issues, the cultural clash over the role of a company and its management in driving a social agenda serves as a cautionary tale for corporate leaders in a highly charged environment.
Anheuser-Busch learned about it with a Bud Light promotion involving Dylan Mulvaney, an internet influencer who is transgender. Even though the issue had nothing to do with the quality or taste of the beer, the backlash from the brand faithful had serious material consequences for its sales, market-leading position and the parent’s market cap.
U.S. fast-food chain Chick-fil-A learned about it when its British expansion plans were scuttled after the LGBTQ+ community protested the company ownership’s position on gay rights – not the taste of its chicken, the quality of its service or the cleanliness of its restaurants.
And the list goes on. Starbucks, Target, Disney, Nike, Levi Strauss and Wayfair have all faced backlash for taking public positions on social issues, from LGBTQ+ rights to gun control.
The new hate for Elon Musk is childish and hypocritical
What’s somewhat different in the Ben & Jerry’s case is this: What did Unilever expect? Did the big British conglomerate, best known for its Dove soap and Hellman’s condiment brands, not complete its due diligence? Or was it arrogant enough to think that after almost 50 years of activism, Ben & Jerry’s would change its spots?
It’s not as if the ice cream-maker ever hid its activist culture. A loud, independent voice on social issues has always been the backbone of its brand identity. In simple terms, Ben & Jerry’s didn’t jump on the progressive bandwagon – it is the bandwagon.
Take a look at the company’s marketing materials and it is very clear: This is an activist company that sells ice cream, not the other way around.
It’s Values, Activism and Mission statement leaves no doubt: “We believe that ice cream can change the world. We have a progressive, nonpartisan social mission that seeks to meet human needs and eliminate injustices in our local, national, and international communities by integrating these concerns in our day-to-day business activities.”
To be sure, it’s unclear how a mission can be both progressive and nonpartisan at the same time. But it makes for snappy promotional copy.
Let’s be honest. Ben & Jerry’s would probably face strong pushback from its faithful if it advocated for issues that leaned right of centre.
Interestingly, you need to dig pretty deep to learn about its products, with popular whimsical names like Cherry Garcia and Chunky Monkey. And even then, its statement has a socially conscious message: “To make, distribute, and sell the finest-quality ice cream and euphoric concoctions with a continued commitment to incorporating wholesome, natural ingredients and promoting business practices that respect the Earth and the Environment.”
Ben & Jerry’s first filed suit against Unilever in 2024, alleging its parent silenced its attempts to publicly support Palestinian refugees and resolutions to end military aid to Israel.
This week’s amendment claims Unilever repeatedly tried to silence the ice cream brand on social media, including barring a January post about abortion, climate change and universal health care, posts supporting Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian refugee detained for his involvement with demonstrations last year at Columbia University in New York, and posts celebrating Black History Month in February.
Is there a path to resolution? Perhaps. Unilever said last year it intended to sell Ben & Jerry’s. Perhaps this latest legal escalation will hasten the execution of that plan.
The outstanding question is whether any potential buyer will be willing to swallow Ben & Jerry’s strident, vocal position on social issues. It’s a good bet that after almost five decades of activism, the company isn’t likely to change.