Ben & Jerry's is challenging Unilever's authority amid plans to silence its public critique of President Trump. In a court case escalating tensions between the famed ice cream maker and its corporate parent, Ben & Jerry’s claims Unilever is restricting its longstanding social advocacy.
According to the New York Post, The feud was ignited when Unilever and its ice cream chief barred Ben & Jerry's from denouncing Trump.
This legal altercation emerged when filings were made to the Manhattan federal court by Ben & Jerry's on a Thursday. They accused Peter ter Kulve, Unilever's Global Ice Cream President, of prohibiting on the same day Ben & Jerry’s public criticisms aimed at President Trump. According to the filing, Kulve justified his actions by citing restructuring within the company, describing the situation as a "new dynamic in this unprecedented time."
Ben & Jerry’s has taken this step as part of a broader contention against certain practices by Unilever. Unilever's plans to restructure its brand portfolio include spinning off its ice cream division, with Ben & Jerry’s set to be part of a new entity based in Amsterdam. The restructuring has raised concerns about the future independence of Ben & Jerry’s board and its ability to continue its role in social justice movements.
The conflict has roots in the differing approaches to political and social issues since Unilever’s acquisition of Ben & Jerry’s in 2000. Particularly, tensions have been noticeable since 2021 when the ice cream company halted sales in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.
The commitment of Ben & Jerry's to social activism dates back to its foundation in 1978 by Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield. This ethos has become a signature trait of the brand, known equally for its innovatively flavored ice cream and its engagement in various causes.
In 2024, the revenue for Unilever's ice cream brands, including Ben & Jerry’s, reached €8.3 billion. The flourishing ice cream sector represents a significant part of Unilever's portfolio, contributing to the strategic importance of the restructuring. However, the potential spin-off poses questions about how the separated entity would function and align with its founding principles under new governance structures.
The case, officially proceeding as Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Inc v Unilever et al, holds attention not only for its implications for corporate governance but also for highlighting the evolving dynamics in corporate responsibility and advocacy in business operations. Filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, the lawsuit's docket number is 24-08641.
Beyond the current legal proceedings, the standoff between Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever underscores deep-rooted questions about the extent to which a subsidiary can maintain its founding ethos under a conglomerate that operates on a global scale. It challenges whether Ben & Jerry’s can remain an influential voice in public affairs and social activism under the proposed new corporate arrangements.
Observers and advocates within the sectors of corporate social responsibility watch closely as these events unfold, anticipating potential repercussions not just for these entities but for industry-wide practices on managing brand ethos in multinational structures.
The outcome of this case could set precedents affecting how conglomerates handle acquisitions of companies with strong social missions. For now, the legal processes continue to evolve as both parties seek a resolution that aligns with their strategic and ethical perspectives.
