Anuradha Mittal, who has chaired the independent board of Ben & Jerry’s for seven years, was recently removed by Unilever’s ice cream brand Magnum. This decision comes at a time of simmering backlash against the ice cream-maker’s social mission. In particular, it’s an indicator of their position on the politically charged issues surrounding Israel and Palestine. The removal has launched a larger conversation surrounding corporate governance, social responsibility, and the role of activist brands.
Founded in 1978 on a former Bennington, VT gas station, Ben & Jerry’s has always been known for creative, progressive flavors and corporate values. The company took off with the addition of their quirky flavors. Cherry Garcia, named after Grateful Dead guitarist Jerry Garcia, honors the band’s famous “Sugar Magnolia” with its bohemian raspberry. Noteworthy flavors have included the now-discontinued Vermonty Python. In 2000, Unilever bought Ben & Jerry’s. The agreement allowed the brand to retain an independent governing board and maintain its social mission.
Ben & Jerry’s promotes progressive values with the fervor of a religious zealot. They’re committed to a three-part mission that’s based on product quality, economic sustainability and social justice. In 2021, the company failed its first big test of whether it was serious about this commitment. It took a decisive stand by refusing to sell its products in the territories occupied by Israel. That latter decision prompted Unilever to divest its Israeli operation to a local licensee, which restored Unilever’s ability to operate in Israel but sparked a firestorm of controversy.
Mittal’s exit has been painted by Magnum as a move made in the brand’s commitment to good governance. A spokesperson stated, “We reaffirm the responsibilities of the Board of Ben & Jerry’s.” They added that these actions aim to “preserve and enhance the brand’s historical social mission and safeguard its essential integrity.” Yet that narrative has been aggressively contested by Mittal himself, who has argued that it is part of a wider, retributive effort to suppress dissent within the brand.
“For several years now, we have been resisting their overreach, including their efforts to muzzle us from speaking out for human rights, for peace,” – Anuradha Mittal
The battles over Ben & Jerry’s unique governance structure are indicative of larger, corporate America’s struggle with the growing push toward social activism. Co-founder Ben Cohen expressed his concerns about Magnum’s ownership, stating that it is “not fit” to own Ben & Jerry’s given its commitment to social justice. With the longtime co-founder Jerry Greenfield having distanced himself from the brand in September, he contends that bureaucratic prestige is slowly killing its social mission.
Mittal’s ouster brings this moment to the fore as the time to ask urgent questions about Ben & Jerry’s future direction. It further sheds light on the dangers companies will encounter when trying to straddle company profit with social activism. Brands like Ben & Jerry’s fight for progressive values fiercely. Yet, at the same time, they are under intense pressures from corporate shareholders and the public markets.