Ben & Jerry’s, the iconic Vermont-based ice cream brand, has hurled serious allegations at its parent company, Unilever, claiming it unlawfully fired CEO David Stever over disputes regarding its progressive activism. The legal complaint, filed on March 18, 2025, in the Southern District of New York, asserts that Unilever's motives for Stever's dismissal stem from his commitment to the company’s social mission, particularly concerning issues like human rights and support for Palestinian rights.
Founded in 1978 by childhood friends Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, Ben & Jerry’s has a long-standing reputation for championing progressive causes alongside its offbeat flavors. However, tensions have escalated between the ice cream maker and its corporate parent since Unilever acquired the company in 2000. A merger agreement established an independent board to oversee Ben & Jerry’s adherence to its social values—values that now seem to conflict with Unilever’s corporate strategy.
On March 3, 2025, Unilever informed Ben & Jerry’s that Stever was being replaced, claiming that the decision was made without proper consultation with the independent board, thus breaching the merger agreement. According to Ben & Jerry’s filings, the removal represents an effort by Unilever to silence the brand’s advocacy. The company has accused Unilever of not only firing Stever but also of attempting to suppress its ability to engage on sensitive social issues, including both social media expressions and support for various activist causes.
In their complaint, Ben & Jerry’s stated, “Unilever has repeatedly threatened Ben & Jerry’s personnel, including CEO David Stever, should they fail to comply with Unilever’s efforts to silence the Social Mission.” The ice cream brand’s board chair, Anuradha Mittal, emphasized that Stever’s commitment to the brand and its values should have shielded him from such corporate maneuverings.
In the wake of Stever’s departure, Ben & Jerry’s co-founders publicly expressed their support for him, arguing that his leadership was crucial for the brand’s future. Cohen and Greenfield stated, “Dave has been a tireless champion of this company and its progressive values. We believe there’s no one better to lead Ben & Jerry’s at this moment in its history.”
This latest conflict is not isolated but part of a broader trend among corporations facing pressure to align their public stances with shareholder interests. As political landscapes shift, many companies, including Disney, Walmart, and Meta, have begun retreating from diversity and inclusion initiatives in the face of consumer and political pushback. Critics argue that businesses should prioritize their fiduciary responsibilities over political posturing, a sentiment echoed by Ben & Jerry's critics who felt its position on Israeli policies was damaging to brand integrity.
On a corporate level, Unilever is reportedly preparing to spin off its ice cream division, a move that would effectively separate Ben & Jerry’s from the conglomerate. Some industry analysts see this as an acknowledgment that the partnership may have become untenable due to the contentious nature of the brand’s advocacy. The maneuver suggests that Unilever could prefer to disengage from the complications associated with the vocal social mission of Ben & Jerry's.
Despite Unilever's efforts to quell the brand's activism, including maintaining control over its social media presence, Ben & Jerry’s has continued to stand firm. The complaint alleges that Unilever blocked various public statements, including one regarding a ceasefire amid ongoing conflicts in Gaza, which emerged significantly heated following notable events in October 2023. The ice cream brand also claimed it faced obstacles when attempting to express solidarity with detained pro-Palestinian activists.
As the legal battle unfolds, the focus remains on how much corporate governance can appropriately intervene in a company’s ethical stances or social mission. One key aspect of the merger agreement emphasized the importance of respect for Ben & Jerry’s independent board designed to uphold its social accountability. After Stever's firing, Murphy Twin, spokesperson for Unilever, characterized the decision as compliant with corporate rights while asserting that the company values Ben & Jerry’s commitment to social causes but must balance that with strategic corporate initiatives.
Ben & Jerry’s contention that it has been silenced feeds into a much larger narrative about corporate complicity in political schisms and the potential risks they pose in terms of market viability. As these tensions continue to make headlines, they raise critical questions about the intersection of business, ethics, and activism. Can companies navigate their economic interests while being tied to social responsibilities? And how might that tension reshape corporate America moving forward?
The case has garnered significant public and media attention, and it reflects a growing divide within American corporate culture. As consumer sentiment evolves, companies like Ben & Jerry’s might find that a robust engagement with social issues is no longer just a point of brand differentiation but essential to the identity of their customer base. Whether Unilever’s attempts to re-align Ben & Jerry’s with more centrist views will succeed in light of the brand's passionate following remains to be seen.
As the saga continues, the implications for both organizations—and the consumers caught in the crossfire—could lead to longer-term shifts in how corporate America interfaces with social activism. The coming weeks will likely see heated discussions surrounding freedom of expression, corporate responsibility, and the influence of shareholder interests.
