There is a reason that Ben & Jerry’s can charge something like $8 for a pint of ice cream—or perhaps more precisely, there are several reasons. For one thing, the quality is good, offering inventive, unique flavor combinations, made of high-quality ingredients. The brand story, of two old friends who make ice cream together, is deeply appealing too. When many products seem faceless or bland, the likeable vision of Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield goofing around in their ubiquitous tie-dyed shirts to build a massively successful company creates a notable and appealing distinction. But perhaps the strongest motivation driving Ben & Jerry’s loyal consumer base is its insistent, persistent, overriding commitment to fair trade, environmentally friendly practices, and social activism.
From the moment they founded the company, Ben and Jerry have insisted that their business would advocate for such ethical purposes, and they have held firm to that ideal even as the brand has grown and changed its structure. In particular, when Unilever acquired Ben & Jerry’s in 2000, they agreed to the takeover only if the international conglomerate agreed that they retained the “independence to pursue [the founders’] values.” It was guaranteed in their contracts, which also permitted the subbrand to elect a board that functioned independently of its parent company. The founders retained control of public messaging and social activism.
The agreement held for several decades. But in 2024, the two founders initiated legal action against Unilever, alleging that it had adopted policy measures designed to circumvent its independent board. Then in 2025, they alleged that the Ben & Jerry’s CEO had been fired for his political speech.
But when Unilever decided to reorganize and consolidate all its ice cream holdings under a new subsidiary, Magnum Ice Cream, the ongoing tensions evidently grew too great to bear for Jerry Greenfield, who announced his decision to resign in protest. In a statement, Greenfield addressed the rumors head on and issued the clear assertion that “Ben & Jerry’s has been silenced, sidelined for fear of upsetting those in power.” Ben Cohen shared the resignation statement on social media, backing his partner’s stance, but thus far, he has decided to stay on at the company, from which position he continues to voice his social values. He also recently called on Unilever to allow the Ben & Jerry’s to regain their independence, by having the conglomerate divest.
Discussion Questions
- Why might Cohen and Greenfield have chosen different paths in reaction to Unilever’s actions, despite their continued support of one another?
- Weighing the current negative press that this issue has generated, especially amongst Ben & Jerry’s core customer base, against the overall profitability of the brand, does it make sense for Unilever to allow the company to divest? What external factors might further tip the decision in one direction or the other?
Sources: Yan Zhuang, “Jerry of Ben & Jerry’s Resigns, Saying Company Has Been ‘Silenced’,” The New York Times, September 17, 2025; Rabia Iclal Turan, “Ben & Jerry’s Co-Founder Jerry Greenfield Resigns, Citing Unilever’s ‘Silencing’ of Brand’s Activism,” Anadolu Agency, September 17, 2025; WCAX News Team, Amanda Alvarado, “Jerry Quits Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream Over His Political Views,” WOWT, September 17, 2025.