Founders demand independence for Ben & Jerry's from Unilever

In a continuing battle over brand independence, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, the cofounders of Ben & Jerry's ice cream, have publicly addressed their concerns regarding the ownership of their company, which has been under Unilever's control since 2000. They argue that Unilever has gradually restricted the brand’s ability to express its social mission, which was a fundamental part of its identity when the founders sold the company. The conflict escalated when the cofounders released an open letter directed to the board of the Magnum Ice Cream Company, which is currently in the process of being separated from Unilever. They emphasized that since it is being spun off, Ben & Jerry's should similarly be allowed to operate independently.Any remaining relationship with Unilever should exist only in a supportive capacity, enabling the brand to honor its commitment to social justice without compromise. The open letter, published on a dedicated website, detailed a history of disputes over corporate governance and the brand's public voice. Cohen and Greenfield expressed their concerns about how the decisions made by Unilever have undermined their original vision for the brand. They particularly criticized Unilever's actions in removing Ben & Jerry's CEO, David Stever, which they claim was a violation of their merger agreement that ensures proper protocols for leadership changes. This removal occurred amid Stever's advocacy for social issues, including criticism of political figures and policies, which Cohen and Greenfield feel reflects the silencing of the brand’s progressive voice. Unilever has countered that it remains committed to Ben & Jerry's unique three-part mission, which encompasses product quality, economic fairness, and social justice. They maintain that the ice cream brand will continue to thrive under the new structure that includes Magnum, which is expected to become the world's largest ice cream conglomerate once it is publicly listed. Despite the company's claims, the founders remain adamant that the brand should be freed from corporate constraints to truly fulfill its mission. The ongoing friction between Ben & Jerry's and Unilever highlights the complexities that arise when a socially-driven brand is absorbed into a large corporate entity, raising questions about the balance between profitability and social responsibility. In summary, the dispute illustrates a fundamental tension between corporate interests and the founding mission of a socially-conscious brand. The founders' plea for independence reflects a desire to return to their original principles and a call for greater corporate accountability regarding social issues. The public response to this ongoing conflict signifies not only the unique identity of Ben & Jerry's but also broader discussions about corporate responsibility in today’s market landscape.