Ben & Jerry’s claim CEO sacked by Unilever over social activism
Since 1978, ice cream makers Ben & Jerry’s have famously pushed for social change.
But in recent years, the US manufacturer has engaged in bitter clashes with parent company Unilever, claiming it is being silenced by the consumer giant over its stance on Gaza.
This week, Ben & Jerry’s returned to court, this time claiming Unilever unlawfully removed its chief executive in retaliation over the company’s social and political activism.
So how did we get here?
Ben & Jerry’s have been locked in a bitter dispute with their parent company. (Reuters: Hannah McKay)
What happened last time?
Ben & Jerry’s, founded by Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, was bought by UK consumer goods group Unilever in 2000.
At the time, the Vermont-based company heralded the new partnership as an opportunity to expand its social mission.
But the relationship soured in 2021 when the organisation announced it would stop selling ice cream in the Israeli-occupied West Bank because it was not consistent with the company’s values.
The organisation then sued Unilever for selling its business in Israel to its licensee there, allowing marketing in the West Bank and Israel to continue.
The lawsuit was settled in 2022.
But in November last year, Ben & Jerry’s launched a new legal action against Unilever, accusing it of silencing its support of Palestinian refugees in the Gaza war.
Why are they in court again?
This latest filing is an amendment to November’s lawsuit.
It says Unilever informed the Ben and Jerry’s board on March 3 that it was “removing and replacing” chief executive David Stever without the required approval from its board.
The manufacturer claimed this came after Unilever repeatedly threatened Ben and Jerry’s personnel over non-compliance with the parent company’s “efforts to silence the social mission”.
The ice cream makers said this violated their 2000 merger agreement.
Ben & Jerry’s claims it’s being silenced by Unilever. (Reuters: Andrew Kelly)
How has Unilever responded?
Unilever has since fired back, seeking a dismissal of Ben & Jerry’s earlier complaint.
It also claimed the ice cream maker’s social mission had evolved into advocacy for “one-sided, highly controversial, and polarising topics that put Unilever, Ben & Jerry’s, and their employees at risk”.
According to Unilever, Ben & Jerry’s chair Anuradha Mittal started driving this change in 2021, when the company decided to stop selling ice cream in the West Bank.
Unilever’s filing did not address Mr Stever’s job or the proposed amended complaint.
In a statement, the parent company said it had repeatedly attempted to engage the Ben & Jerry’s board and follow the correct process.
“We are disappointed that the confidentiality of an employee career conversation has been made public,”
they said.
Ben & Jerry’s has campaigned for multiple social issues. (Reuters: Brian Snyder)
What other causes has Ben & Jerry’s backed?
Ben & Jerry’s has a long history of campaigning on social issues, including racial justice, abortion rights, LGBTQIA+ issues and climate change.
Last month, in another court filing, the ice cream maker accused Unilever of banning it from publicly criticising US president Donald Trump.
In its latest filing, Unilever said it offered to work with Ben & Jerry’s board on a statement “focused on substantive issues without personal attacks on President Trump”.
However, it claimed the board refused its “reasonable and prudent calls for balance”.
Ben & Jerry’s activism has also crossed oceans, with the company refusing in 2017 to serve Australian customers a double scoop of the same ice cream flavour until same-sex marriage was legalised.
In 2023, the ice cream giant also announced their support for a Yes vote at the Voice referendum.
AP/Reuters