Jerry Greenfield, co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, has stepped down from the company he helped build nearly half a century ago. Greenfield cited a fundamental conflict with the parent company Unilever, claiming that the brand’s ability to carry out its activism and social mission has been severely compromised.
What Led to the Resignation
- Greenfield has said that when Ben & Jerry’s was sold to Unilever in 2000, he and his co-founder Ben Cohen negotiated a merger agreement designed to protect the company’s independence—especially its capacity to speak out on political and social issues.
- In recent years, tensions have mounted between Ben & Jerry’s founders and Unilever. Greenfield argues that Unilever has increasingly curtailed the brand’s ability to express its values on matters like human rights, justice, and global conflict.
- A major flashpoint was Ben & Jerry’s 2021 decision to stop selling its ice cream in Israeli-occupied territories. That move triggered legal disputes, public criticism, and a sense among the founders that Unilever was undermining the company’s principles.
Greenfield’s Statement
Greenfield has expressed that he can no longer “in good conscience” remain part of a company that has been “silenced” when he believes it should be speaking out. He described his departure as one of his hardest decisions, especially because activism was not just part of Ben & Jerry’s identity—it was built into its governance and promise to customers.
Unilever’s Position
- Unilever, which owns Ben & Jerry’s as part of its ice cream division, has responded by saying that it values the brand’s mission and has tried to engage with the founders to maintain its values-led direction.
- While Unilever disagrees with Greenfield’s characterization of events, it has acknowledged the importance of dialogue and expressed gratitude for his long-standing role in making the brand what it is.
The Bigger Picture
- Beyond this specific case, the resignation highlights a recurring challenge for brands with activist roots once they’ve become part of larger corporate entities: maintaining authenticity and values while under ownership that may prioritize different goals.
- For customers and advocates, it raises the question of whether a company can remain true to its social mission when ownership and profit motives are in tension with activist aims.
- It also points to growing pressure on companies to take public stances in a polarized global environment—and the risks when parent companies are seen to limit that freedom.
What Comes Next
- Greenfield’s exit could mark a turning point in how Ben & Jerry’s is perceived by its supporters. Some may view it as a betrayal of core values; others may expect immediate changes in policy.
- There are also suggestions the founders sought to spin off the brand or restructure its governance to regain independence, but those efforts apparently did not succeed.
- For Unilever, this is a moment of reputational risk. How it navigates the fallout could affect not only its relationship with activists, but also consumer trust in Ben & Jerry’s as a brand that once stood firmly behind its social promises.
Leave a Reply