Ben & Jerry’s co-founder Ben Cohen has reignited a long-running tension between the ice cream brand’s founders and its parent company, Unilever, after revealing that a proposed flavor supporting peace in Palestine was blocked from production. The dispute underscores the deep divide between the company’s activist origins and the corporate oversight that now governs its decisions.
A Flavor for Peace That Never Reached Freezers
According to Cohen, the idea for the new flavor was rooted in solidarity and peace. The flavor — reportedly inspired by watermelon, a symbol often associated with Palestinian identity — was intended to raise awareness of humanitarian struggles in the region and promote dialogue for peace. Ben & Jerry’s independent social mission board had reportedly approved the idea, but Unilever management vetoed it before it could move forward.
Cohen expressed disappointment, saying the company’s original mission of “using business to improve the world” had been compromised. He claimed that the blocked flavor represented a lost opportunity to demonstrate compassion through one of the brand’s most powerful platforms — its products.
Tensions Between Founders and Corporate Parent
This isn’t the first time Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever have clashed over political and ethical issues. Since Unilever acquired the Vermont-based ice cream company in 2000, disagreements have surfaced over the extent of the brand’s independence in pursuing social causes.
Ben & Jerry’s famously halted sales in certain areas of the Israeli-occupied West Bank in 2021, a decision that Unilever later reversed by transferring distribution rights to a local licensee. That controversy caused one of the most significant rifts between the founders and the corporate leadership. Jerry Greenfield, the other co-founder, later resigned, citing frustration with Unilever’s handling of issues related to social justice and political advocacy.
Corporate Risk or Moral Responsibility?
Unilever’s decision to block the new flavor appears to have been motivated by concerns over market backlash and political sensitivity. The company reportedly believed that releasing a product linked to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could alienate consumers and damage its global reputation.
However, critics argue that the move contradicts Ben & Jerry’s founding ethos. The brand built its identity around social activism, taking stands on climate change, racial justice, and global peace. To them, silencing such initiatives undermines the authenticity that made the company unique.
Cohen has since announced that he intends to create and distribute the flavor independently under his own label, free from Unilever’s influence. He emphasized that the goal is not to provoke controversy but to inspire compassion and awareness through a simple act — sharing ice cream for peace.
The Broader Question of Corporate Activism
The dispute raises larger questions about whether socially conscious brands can remain true to their values under corporate ownership. As major conglomerates continue to acquire purpose-driven businesses, conflicts often arise between profit motives and activism.
Consumers increasingly expect brands to take stands on ethical issues, but multinational corporations must navigate the financial and political risks that come with such positions. Ben & Jerry’s ongoing battle with its parent company has become a case study in the challenges of maintaining moral conviction in the face of corporate constraints.
Looking Ahead
The episode could have lasting repercussions for both Unilever and Ben & Jerry’s. For Unilever, the controversy adds to the growing perception that it prioritizes brand safety over social conscience. For Ben & Jerry’s loyal fans, it’s a reminder that the ice cream brand once synonymous with activism may now be struggling to stay true to its roots.
As Ben Cohen pushes forward with his independent project, he hopes to remind the world that ice cream can be more than dessert — it can be a message of hope, unity, and peace.
Leave a Reply