Photo credit: www.eater.com
Ben & Jerry’s, the politically engaged ice cream company based in Vermont, is now claiming that its parent company, Unilever, has dismissed its CEO, David Stever. These allegations are part of a newly proposed amended complaint in the ongoing lawsuit filed by Ben & Jerry’s against Unilever. The amendment suggests that “Unilever’s motive for removing Mr. Stever is his dedication to Ben & Jerry’s Social Mission and Essential Brand Integrity … rather than any genuine concerns regarding his performance history.”
The lawsuit, initiated by Ben & Jerry’s in November, centers on accusations that Unilever has disregarded Ben & Jerry’s commitment to its social mission and brand integrity. The complaint includes claims that Unilever has threatened employees if they speak out on issues that the corporate parent wishes to avoid, such as advocating for Palestine and calling for a ceasefire, as well as criticizing former President Trump.
Founded in 1978 by Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, Ben & Jerry’s has always prioritized activism. The brand’s website states: “Guided by our core values, we seek in all we do, at every level of our business, to advance human rights and dignity, support social and economic justice for historically marginalized communities, and protect and restore the Earth’s natural systems.” However, this mission has increasingly clashed with Unilever’s corporate strategy since its acquisition of the company in 2000. During the acquisition, Ben & Jerry’s expressed optimism that Unilever would support its social goals while benefiting from its “social practices worldwide.” A statement closer to the time highlighted this hope.
Unilever’s acquisition made Ben & Jerry’s a subsidiary while allowing it to maintain an independent board, which has limited oversight from Unilever. Ben & Jerry’s describes this board as being “empowered to protect and defend Ben & Jerry’s brand equity and integrity.” The initial lawsuit alleges that Unilever threatened to dismantle the Independent Board and sue the board members individually should Ben & Jerry’s support peace and a ceasefire, contradicting their longstanding motto of ‘peace, love, & ice cream.’
The legal filing also mentions that other censored posts have included endorsements for Palestinian refugee visas and backing for campus demonstrations advocating for Palestine. Additionally, the company claims that Unilever has managed to stifle its responses to criticism of Trump.
The proposed amendment to the lawsuit describes Unilever’s actions as having “reached startling new levels of oppressiveness — and irony.” Incidents highlighted include Unilever’s obstruction of Ben & Jerry’s plans to post something for Black History Month and a statement advocating for First Amendment protections related to an ACLU petition concerning Mahmoud Khalil, a permanent resident recently detained by ICE during pro-Palestine protests at Columbia University. The amendment asserts that Unilever has “encroached on the Independent Board’s authority over the Social Mission.”
These conflicts unfold alongside Unilever’s broader plans to separate its ice cream division, including brands like Ben & Jerry’s, Breyers, Magnum, and Talenti, as part of a cost-cutting strategy. This spin-off, which is set to finalize this year, has reportedly been conducted without adequate communication regarding how this restructuring will honor the existing agreements relating to Ben & Jerry’s social mission and the Independent Board’s jurisdiction.
Despite these pressures, Ben & Jerry’s continues to voice its social values vigoroudly, distinguishing itself from many large corporations. Recently, its social media outlets shared messages supporting abortion rights, highlighting Black History Month, and advocating for clemency for individuals with cannabis convictions, which President Biden addressed before leaving office. While some critics have suggested they should “stick to ice cream,” the company remains unyielding in its commitment to activism.
Source
www.eater.com