Unilever was so anxious to get its corporate mitts on the brand that it sweetened the deal by throwing in a promise to contribute millions to the foundation Cohen and Greenfield formed to promote progressive social causes. And it granted Ben & Jerry’s an extraordinary amount of autonomy, agreeing to let an independent board oversee the ice cream maker’s operation, and to make sure Unilever kept its promise to retain Ben & Jerry’s business culture and social mission.
Lest any of its loyal customers thought selling to multinational conglomerate Unilever smacked of selling out, Cohen and Greenfield framed the deal as giving their company the money and leverage to expand its social mission, which included pushing for marriage equality and responding to climate change.
In doing so, Cohen, a confirmed Deadhead, quoted from the Grateful Dead’s song, Scarlet Begonias: ’Once in a while, you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.’
Cohen and Greenfield were never under any illusions about the difference between Ben & Jerry’s and its parent company.
As Greenfield put it in 2010, “Ben & Jerry’s is values-led, whereas Unilever is more consumer driven.”
Still, for most of the corporate marriage, Unilever abided by the autonomy it had promised Ben & Jerry’s in its initial proposal.
The first serious cracks in the marriage showed up in 2021, when Ben & Jerry’s announced it would halt sales in West Bank settlements, saying the Israeli occupation there conflicted with its values.
That move led a half-dozen states pulling hundreds of millions of dollars in their pension funds from Unilever.
Unilever’s response was to sell off the Ben & Jerry’s brand in Israel. And Ben & Jerry’s, in turn, sued Unilever.
As with most marriages, once the lawyers get involved, it’s over.
Last year, London-based Unilever announced it would cut 7,500 jobs and spin off its entire ice cream unit, which included the Ben & Jerry’s business, as part of a cost-cutting move it hoped to conclude by the end of this year.
Since then, things have only gotten messier.
In November, Ben & Jerry’s filed a lawsuit against Unilever, accusing its parent company of censoring its attempts to show support for Palestinians who have suffered during the war in Gaza.
The suit claimed Unilever tried to squash Ben & Jerry’s independent board and muzzle its efforts to express solidarity with Palestinian refugees, US students protesting against the war in Gaza, and opposition to US funding of Israeli military aid.
Unilever scoffed at the claims.
Then, in January, Ben & Jerry’s claimed Unilever prevented the company from criticizing President Trump in a social media post scheduled for Inauguration Day.
Things got even worse in March when Unilever fired Ben & Jerry’s CEO David Stever.
Ben & Jerry’s board amended its lawsuit to say Unilever fired Stever because he refused to stop the ice cream maker from taking public positions on political issues. The board also claimed Trump’s aggressive targeting of DEI measures and of critics of Israel’s war in Gaza coincided with Unilever refusing to allow Ben & Jerry’s make social media postings in support of Black History Month and Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University activist whom the adminstration is trying to deport for leading pro-Palestinian protests.
In a statement, Ben & Jerry’s board chair Anuradhapura Mittal offered the clearest evidence yet the marriage with Unilever had reached the point of irreconcilable differences.
“For 25 years under Unilever’s ownership, this unique governance structure has been key to Ben & Jerry’s success,” she said. “But today, that structure — and the values it protects — is under direct attack. Unilever has repeatedly interfered with the Independent Board’s authority, attempting to silence Ben & Jerry’s advocacy, and even threaten the Board’s dissolution.”
Unilever sent me its own statement, saying it followed the terms of its agreement with the board over decisions about the company’s CEO, adding, “We are disappointed that the confidentiality of an employee career conversation has been made public.”
Cohen wants to buy the brand back from Unilever, which seems like a win-win for everybody.
Look, it would be in Ben & Jerry’s financial interest to lay low until Unilever spins them off. But that’s not how they roll.
When so many people are following Seamus Heaney’s admonition “Whatever you say, say nothing,” you don’t have to agree with Ben & Jerry’s politics to admire their conviction.
And, as the Grateful Dead guitarist and singer who inspired Ben & Jerry’s Cherry Garcia ice cream once put it, “Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.”
Kevin Cullen is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at kevin.cullen@globe.com.