Controversy and Scepticism
The union of Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever has been anything but smooth. Central to the controversy is Ben & Jerry’s fiercely independent social and political stance. As part of the 2000 merger, Ben & Jerry’s retained an independent board with primary responsibility for the brand’s social and political stance and moral integrity. However, this unique structure has led to repeated clashes.
Tensions reached a boiling point over issues such as Ben & Jerry’s decision to halt sales in Israeli-occupied territories in 2021, citing inconsistency with its ethics. This move triggered lawsuits, accusations of antisemitism, and financial backlash, including divestment from Unilever’s stock in several U.S. states. Unilever responded by selling Ben & Jerry’s Israeli business to a local licensee, a workaround that aggravated Ben & Jerry’s to sue its parent company for bypassing its independent board.
The disputes have continued, with Ben & Jerry’s accusing Unilever of censoring its social media activism. Regarding support for Palestinian refugees and other progressive causes, Ben & Jerry’s accused Unilever of censorship. They also stated that Unilever unlawfully fired its CEO for upholding the company’s political, moral and social stance on global issues. Unilever has denied these allegations, arguing that the board’s activism has become increasingly polarizing and that it retains the right to make key business decisions.
Further complicating the relationship, Unilever announced in 2024 that it would spin off its entire ice cream division, including Ben & Jerry’s, into a separate company with a primary listing in Amsterdam by the end of 2025. This move, part of a broader corporate restructuring, has raised fresh concerns within Ben & Jerry’s about the future of its independent board, ultimately affecting their social, environmental, and political mission.