Unilever has had enough of Ben & Jerry’s radical leftist activism and is now putting the ‘social justice’ ice cream makers on a corporate leash that’s freezing their political meltdowns.
At a Glance
- Unilever rejects founders’ attempts to buy back Ben & Jerry’s, instead incorporating it into new “Magnum Ice Cream Company”
- Ben & Jerry’s accuses Unilever of firing CEO David Stever due to his support for political activism, particularly pro-Palestinian messaging
- Unilever threatens to pull $5 million annual funding from Ben & Jerry’s Foundation unless it submits to an expedited audit
- The ice cream maker filed an amended lawsuit claiming Unilever violated a 2022 settlement granting it control over its social mission
- Conflict escalated after previous dispute over Ben & Jerry’s attempt to boycott sales in Israel
When Woke Ice Cream Meets Corporate Reality
Remember when ice cream was just about delicious frozen treats rather than radical political activism? Those days are long gone at Ben & Jerry’s, where serving up socialist propaganda alongside Cherry Garcia has become standard practice. Now Unilever, which acquired the Vermont-based ice cream brand in 2000, is finally putting its foot down against the increasingly off-the-rails activism that’s been damaging its corporate interests for years. The parent company isn’t just refusing to sell the brand back to its founders—it’s creating an entirely new corporate structure that will likely put the progressive popsicle pushers on a tighter leash.
In a filing that screams of entitlement, Ben & Jerry’s is now claiming that Unilever unceremoniously dumped CEO David Stever because he supported the company’s political activism. The ice cream maker alleges this move violates their merger agreement, which supposedly protects their “social mission.” That mission has increasingly centered on radical positions like defunding police departments and pushing pro-Palestinian messaging that many have criticized as bordering on antisemitism. It’s astonishing that a dessert company believes its constitutional right to make ice cream somehow includes using corporate resources to push divisive political agendas.
Following the Money Trail
If you want to understand what’s really melting down at Ben & Jerry’s, follow the money. Unilever has threatened to suspend its annual $5 million contribution to the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation unless the organization submits to an expedited audit of its donations. This foundation has been funneling money to various social justice organizations, including groups like the Human Rights Coalition and the Felony Murder Elimination Project. It seems Unilever has finally awakened to the possibility that they’ve been bankrolling radical activism that contradicts their broader corporate interests and alienates half their potential customer base.
“It is our responsibility to ensure that these funds are used properly,” said Unilever CEO Fernando Fernandez, making a rare statement of common sense in corporate America. The audit demand comes as the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation has increasingly funded organizations with controversial political positions while using a dessert company as their financial backing.
Corporate Governance Showdown
The battle between Unilever and Ben & Jerry’s exemplifies what happens when virtue-signaling social enterprises crash into the reality of global corporate governance. In 2022, Ben & Jerry’s attempted to boycott sales in Israel—a move that prompted immediate legal action and backlash. Unilever, recognizing the absurdity of allowing ice cream makers to dictate foreign policy, overruled the decision and sold the Israeli business to a local licensee. Now Ben & Jerry’s claims this violated a settlement that supposedly granted them “primary responsibility” over their social mission.
“Regrettably, despite repeated attempts to engage the Board and follow the correct process, we are disappointed that the confidentiality of an employee career conversation has been made public. We hope that the B&J Independent Board will engage as per the original, agreed process.” – Unilever spokesperson.
What makes this situation particularly ridiculous is the entitlement on display from Ben & Jerry’s founders. Co-founder Ben Cohen has been attempting to gather investors to buy back the brand he willingly sold decades ago, begging Unilever to “set us free.” The sheer audacity is remarkable—they happily pocketed millions from the sale but now want to reclaim control because the parent company won’t fund their political activism. Unilever’s decisive response? Creating the new “Magnum Ice Cream Company” that will be listed in the Netherlands starting July 1, presumably with stronger corporate governance to prevent ice cream makers from moonlighting as geopolitical consultants.
“The separation and listing of ice cream is the option that we consider maximizes shareholder value, that has not changed” – Unilever CEO Fernando Fernandez.
The Ben & Jerry’s saga represents everything wrong with corporate America’s leftward lurch. When you’re spending more time crafting political manifestos than improving your product, perhaps it’s time to reassess your business model. Unilever appears to have finally realized that allowing ice cream makers to dictate controversial political positions isn’t just bad business—it’s an abdication of proper corporate governance. The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences when your activism starts eating into the bottom line of a multinational corporation that actually has shareholders to answer to.
