In a fresh escalation of tensions, Ben & Jerry’s has accused its parent company, Unilever, of obstructing its efforts to advocate for Palestinian refugees and its broader social mission. In a lawsuit filed Wednesday, the Vermont-based ice cream maker claims Unilever not only suppressed its attempts to speak out but also threatened to dismantle Ben & Jerry’s independent board and sue its members.
This legal battle marks another chapter in the strained relationship between the two entities. The discord dates back to 2021, when Ben & Jerry’s declared it would cease selling products in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, citing inconsistency with its core values. This decision provoked a backlash, leading some investors to divest from Unilever shares. In response, Unilever sold Ben & Jerry’s Israeli operations to a local licensee, ensuring the brand’s continued presence in both Israel and the West Bank. Ben & Jerry’s sued Unilever over the move, but the case was settled in 2022 under confidential terms.
Breach of Settlement Terms? Ben & Jerry’s
In the new lawsuit, Ben & Jerry’s alleges Unilever has violated the 2022 settlement, which required the parent company to respect the ice cream maker’s independent board’s authority over social mission-related matters. According to the filing, Unilever has repeatedly silenced Ben & Jerry’s attempts to address pressing humanitarian issues, including calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, supporting Palestinian refugees, and backing U.S. college protests against civilian casualties in Gaza.
Despite the independent board attempting to advocate for these causes separately, the company itself was barred from making public statements. Ben & Jerry’s further alleges that Peter ter Kulve, Unilever’s head of ice cream, expressed concerns over the brand’s stance, fearing it could perpetuate perceptions of anti-Semitism.
Obstruction of Donations
A key element of the lawsuit involves Unilever’s alleged interference with Ben & Jerry’s donations to human rights organisations. Under the settlement agreement, Unilever was required to allocate $5 million for Ben & Jerry’s to distribute to groups of its choosing. The company selected recipients, including the Jewish Voice for Peace and the San Francisco Bay Area Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, known for their advocacy in human rights. However, Unilever reportedly blocked the allocation, labelling Jewish Voice for Peace as “too critical” of Israel.
A History of Social Activism
Ben & Jerry’s has long been recognised for its socially conscious mission, a commitment instilled by founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield in 1978. This ethos persisted even after Unilever acquired the brand in 2000, with the ice cream maker frequently taking stances on global social justice issues. However, the relationship between the brand’s activism and its corporate owner has often been fraught.
Unilever’s broader business portfolio includes brands like Dove, Hellmann’s, and Vaseline, among others. In March, the consumer goods giant announced plans to spin off its ice cream division, including Ben & Jerry’s, by 2025, as part of a strategy to streamline its operations.
What Lies Ahead?
The lawsuit underscores the clash between corporate control and the preservation of a socially driven mission. Ben & Jerry’s claims that Unilever’s actions undermine its foundational values and independence, raising questions about the future of its activism under corporate ownership. With Unilever yet to comment on the allegations, the case could set a precedent for balancing activism and corporate oversight in an era of increasing consumer expectation for brands to take ethical stances.