The ongoing dispute between Ben & Jerry’s and its parent company, Unilever, has escalated to new heights, with the ice cream brand accusing Unilever of breaching their merger agreement. This conflict is not just a legal battle; it is a clash of values, a fight over the soul of a brand that has long been synonymous with progressive activism. At the heart of the matter is the removal of Ben & Jerry’s CEO, David Stever, a move that the brand claims was made unilaterally by Unilever without proper consultation or approval from the brand’s board.

In an amended complaint filed in New York, Ben & Jerry’s lawyers argue that the rules stemming from their 2000 merger agreement protect the brand’s interests by preventing the unilateral removal of its CEO. According to the lawsuit, Unilever violated these rules by removing and replacing Stever, citing his commitment to the brand’s social mission and essential integrity rather than any genuine concerns about his performance. This move is seen as an attempt by Unilever to silence the brand’s progressive voice, a voice that has been a defining characteristic of Ben & Jerry’s for decades.

The conflict between Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever is not new; it has been simmering since 2021 and has only intensified over time. The crux of the dispute lies in the brand’s long-standing tradition of using its platform to advocate for social and political issues. From supporting environmental causes and social justice movements to taking stances on controversial topics like abortion and climate change, Ben & Jerry’s has always been more than just an ice cream company. It has been a vocal advocate for change, using its brand power to amplify progressive messages.

Unilever, on the other hand, appears to be increasingly uncomfortable with this aspect of Ben & Jerry’s identity. The multinational conglomerate has allegedly attempted to silence the brand on multiple occasions, leading to a series of legal complaints from Ben & Jerry’s. In January, the company accused Unilever of barring a post referencing abortion, climate change, and universal healthcare because it mentioned President Donald Trump. More recently, Ben & Jerry’s alleged that Unilever blocked a post about Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian refugee whose green card was revoked due to his involvement in demonstrations at Columbia University. The brand also claimed that Unilever prohibited a post celebrating Black History Month.

These incidents highlight a fundamental tension between the two companies. Ben & Jerry’s sees its social activism as a core part of its brand identity, a way to connect with consumers who share its values and to drive positive change in the world. Unilever, however, appears to view these actions as a liability, potentially damaging its broader corporate image and complicating its business operations.

The removal of David Stever, who has been with the company since 1988 and served as CEO since 2023, is a particularly contentious point in this dispute. Stever’s long tenure and deep commitment to the brand’s social mission make his ousting a significant blow to Ben & Jerry’s. The lawsuit alleges that Unilever’s motive for removing Stever was not based on performance issues but rather on his dedication to the brand’s social activism. This move has been seen by many as an attempt by Unilever to reshape Ben & Jerry’s in a way that aligns more closely with its own corporate interests.

Unilever’s response to these allegations has been measured but firm. In a statement, the company emphasized that decisions regarding the appointment, compensation, and removal of the Ben & Jerry’s CEO are made by Unilever after consultation and discussion with the brand’s independent board. Unilever expressed disappointment that details of an employee career conversation had been made public, suggesting that the issue was more about internal management than about silencing the brand’s activism.

The broader context of this conflict is also significant. Unilever announced in March 2024 that it was looking to sell Ben & Jerry’s and its other ice cream brands, though no deal has been completed yet. This potential sale adds another layer of complexity to the situation, as it raises questions about the future of Ben & Jerry’s brand identity and its ability to maintain its commitment to social activism under new ownership.

The clash between Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever is not just a legal battle; it is a battle for the soul of a brand that has long been a beacon for progressive values. The outcome of this dispute will have far-reaching implications, not just for Ben & Jerry’s but for other brands that seek to use their platforms for social change. It raises important questions about the limits of corporate activism and the responsibilities of multinational conglomerates to respect the values and missions of the brands they acquire.

The ongoing dispute between Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever is a microcosm of the broader tensions between corporate interests and brand activism. As Ben & Jerry’s fights to maintain its commitment to social and political issues, it is also fighting to preserve its identity and integrity as a brand. The outcome of this conflict will determine not only the future of Ben & Jerry’s but also set a precedent for how multinational corporations handle the activism of the brands they own. As the legal battle continues, the world watches closely, knowing that the stakes are much higher than just a change in corporate leadership.