Ben & Jerry’s, the popular ice cream maker, is famous for its commitment to social justice and activism. Today it faces a profound identity crisis as corporate interests attempt to undermine the very principles at its heart. Jerry Greenfield and Ben Cohen started the company on a whim in 1978. For decades, it’s served as a subsidiary of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and aggressively lobbied for a multitude of progressive political and social causes. As recent months have shown, it’s an open question whether the company can continue to assert its voice in a world that’s becoming even more influenced by corporate interests.
In 2000, Ben & Jerry’s was sold to Unilever for an estimated $326 million. At the time, Unilever committed to leaving the brand’s independence intact, giving it the freedom to go about its socially responsible business as usual. Though fiercely protective of this autonomy, it has been challenged as the company has continued to operate amid a sometimes fraught relationship with its parent conglomerate.
In recent years, Ben & Jerry’s has fearlessly waded into divisive political waters. They are demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and an end to U.S. military aid and support for Israel. These actions have received applause and backlash, most notably from conservative organizations that have called the company “woke.” This political activism aligns with the company’s roots in the CSR movement, which began gaining traction about 40 to 50 years ago as businesses sought to balance profit with social responsibility.
In 2024, the tension between Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever escalated when Ben & Jerry’s filed a lawsuit against Unilever. The company claimed that Unilever threatened to dismantle its independent board and punish board members if it issued further calls for a ceasefire in Gaza. This legal action brings at least some welcome attention to the concerns about corporate power silencing social advocacy.
Compounding this chaos, co-founder Jerry Greenfield publicly declared his resignation, charging that Unilever had “silenced” Ben & Jerry’s. His surprise exit has fueled speculation about the company’s future. Amid increasing pressures from corporations, the people are wondering about its continued commitment to social justice.
“Ben & Jerry’s has been silenced, sidelined for fear of upsetting those in power.” – Jerry Greenfield
Greenfield’s resignation signals much more than a leadership change – it reflects a tectonic shift within the company. As most socially responsible brands face larger obstacles by traversing the corporate ownership gauntlet, they continue to fight to stay true to their mission in their respective challenges. The CSR movement too has a strong legacy. It called on businesses to move away from profit maximization as the sole purpose of businesses and start focusing on their impact on People, Planet, and Society.
Harvard Business School articulates this sentiment, emphasizing that companies have “a responsibility to do more than simply maximize profits for shareholders and executives.” This lens will soon become the table stakes as consumers’ expectations shift with social progress and heightened consciousness around racial equity and justice.
The backlash against Ben & Jerry’s has been more than just political posturing. The social media company is facing increasing scrutiny and backlash for its perceived hypocrisy in corporate social responsibility. Recently, allegations have proven that it illegally took advantage of migrant child workers. These allegations shine a light on the difficulty of upholding ethical practices within a competitive industry that places profit above all else.
Ben Cohen, the co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s, has been in the news lately. He’s currently campaigning to end U.S. military support for Ukraine, among other important causes. His comments were surprising to many and even more exemplify the tightrope between activism and corporate cash. When personal convictions conflict with corporate orders. This tension makes for an important backdrop to some big questions about the autonomy of employee voices within the company.
In addition to these challenges, Ben & Jerry’s has reportedly fired employees who were overly critical of certain political figures, including former President Donald Trump. Further, silencing dissenting voices from within the organization is hard to reconcile with its creative brand. This is particularly shocking for a company that was once so proud of its maverick contrarianism.
The CSR movement really took off when businesses discovered they could gain access to investment. They did this by positioning themselves as aligned with socially conscious values. One of the earliest mutual funds advocating socially responsible investing was, ironically, the Pioneer Fund, which was set up in 1928. The growth of this movement has created an atmosphere of increasing expectations for businesses to authentically and effectively involve themselves in the company-related social movements.
So as Ben & Jerry’s tries to figure its way out of this mess, consumer and shareholder pressure continues to mount. This is a powerful dynamic. It hasn’t just established a passionate customer base of social justice advocates, it has attracted the ire of people who object to its position.