Ben & Jerry Co-founder Jerry Resigns Ben & Jerry’s , citing that the brand has been silenced in the hands of Unilever. His exit points out to conflicts between business dominance and social movements. Find out how this step can affect the future of Ben and Jerry, its principles and identity on a global scale.
Key Points
- When Greenfield said that he could no longer in good conscience continue working at Ben and Jerry, he meant it.
- His resignation is in the wake of a long-running conflict with the parent company, Unilever (now shedding its ice cream business in the name The Magnum Ice Cream Company) on whether Ben and Jerry still have the social mission and political voice that was contained in the merger contract way back in 2000.
- According to Greenfield, the company has been muted or put aside under the ownership of Unilever when it comes to speaking out on such matters as human rights, justice and prevailing political strife (including that between the Gaza and Israel).
- The inimitable merger agreement that was entered upon during the time of the 2000 acquisition passed Ben and Jerry with predictable rights of governance as well as independence of carrying out its values, which Greenfield claims are no longer honored.
We know what the letter tells us of him.
The following are the most important quotes and arguments that Jerry Greenfield presented, which were reported by various sources:
- It pains me broken-heartedly that I can no longer in good conscience and after 47 years continue to be an employee at Ben and Jerry.
- He claimed that Ben and Jerry’s have been muted, marginalized to not cause some displeasure in those in authority.
- That in the merger between itself and Unilever of 2000 there was a rare merger contract, which permanently fixed our social mission and values into the company governance framework.
- According to him, he feels that the independence that was pledged at that time has been lost.
- He cites the alarm about the larger social problems saying that the time is of the essence since there have been assaults on civil rights, voting rights, the rights of immigrants, women, and that of the LGBTQ community.
- He says that Ben & Jerrys was never just a mere ice cream, he says it was designed to be a means to share love, combat social injustices, etc and that should those values not be maintained within the company he will take them to the outside world.
What Unilever / Magnum Ice Cream has done.
The following are the reported responses:
- Magnum Ice Cream (the unit that Unilever will host Ben and Jerry post the spin-off), does not agree with the point of view held by Greenfield.
- They claim that they have endeavored to talk with the two co-founders in a constructive dialogue on how the strong values based position of Ben and Jerry can be strengthened in the world.
- They also verified that Greenfield is leaving as an ambassador of the brand and that he is not involved in a lawsuit between Ben & Jerry and Unilever.
- Magnum/Unilever reiterated its promise of the Ben & Jerrys three-part-mission product, economic and social, and its pledge to carry on with the tradition of peace, love and ice cream.
This is what it entails in terms of the future of the brand.
Considering these facts, the following are some of the plausible implications, and what to look out:
- The brand autonomy and activism will probably be questioned.
The exit of Greenfield is an indication that he perceives a failure in the full implementation of the social mission of Ben and Jerrys under Unilever. When the founders of the keys feel that the mission is spoiled, that may have an influence on culture inside the company, the image in the eyes of the consumer, and the brand image as an activist of the cause.
- Legal / governance questions.
It has a merger agreement that is supposed to have entrenched social mission and values. The legal friction could cause additional disagreements regarding what that entails in practice, what sort of statements or actions Unilever will permit. Ben and Jerry has already filed a lawsuit against Unilever in the past due to claimed infringement of speech.
- Spin-off or sale efforts.
The article cites efforts (by Ben Cohen / the co-founders) to repurchase Ben and Jerry of spin, allegedly at a valuation of the brand about US1.5-2.5 billion, which Unilever denied.
- Unilever is also currently spinning off its ice cream unit (including Ben and Jerry) into Magnum Ice Cream Company, which can change the balance of decision-making activities regarding activism and social mission.
- Social image and customer demands.
Ben & Jerry has always been linked with activism and a progressive movement. Public resignation by Greenfield on the erosion of the values he has might also spark off backlash or disappointment amongst those customers who appreciate such an identity. On the flip side, it may mobilize the followers of the consumers who desire their brands to make bold social positions.
- Morale and staffing within an organization.
The founders tend to be the protectors of the company culture. Their criticism in the public can influence the feelings of the employees towards the direction. Others might get disillusioned; some of them might increase the level of impetus on themselves to deliver as per the founding values of the company.
- Strategic limitations in bigger corporate ownership.
The case highlights a conflict that most mission-oriented brands have to resolve when sold to large multinationals, namely the extent of freedom of action versus risk aversion, shareholder concerns, regulatory/political risk, etc. It would be worth keeping a watch whether Unilever / Magnum Ice Cream would give more leeway (particularly in the light of this controversy).
Conclusion
The example of Jerry Greenfield leaving Ben and Jerry is the closure of the era and the emphasis on the tension between corporate and brand activism. Although Unilever and its spin-off the Magnum Ice Cream Company, claim to be dedicated to the values of the brand upon its inception, the exit of Greenfield could be said to be undermining the very promise of independent status it was presenting.
The relocation may change the way the consumers view Ben and Jerrys as a brand that is striving to achieve social justice through the corporate control, or as a company that may be losing its activist ethos.
The next few months, and the reorganization of the ice cream division of Unilever, in particular, will prove that either Ben and Jerry will be able to continue with their legacy of peace, love, and outspoken advocacy, or the departure of Jerry will mark the beginning of the end of the company.
Also read- Review of Instantly released trailer of The Housemaid 2025