Phish food for thought: Ben & Jerry’s political turmoil

Investors are cooling on Ben & Jerry’s as the founders continue to be caught up in a spat with the ice cream brand’s owners.

The Magnum Ice Cream Company, which owns Ben & Jerry’s as well as Cornetto and Wall’s, completed a spin-off from parent firm Unilever this week and began trading on the European stock market as a standalone business, but its initial valuation was “significantly lower” than expected, said The Times.

Unilever, and now Magnum, have been embroiled in a “war of words” with Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, the founders of Ben & Jerry’s. The pair have accused both companies of silencing the brand’s “social mission”, after they were told by Magnum boss Peter ter Kulve that they should “hand over to a new generation”.

‘Tug of war’ over activism

The “long-running legal spat” is about the “powers to define” Ben & Jerry’s direction, said Madeleine Speed in the Financial Times. Since the company was acquired by Unilever in 2000 for $326 million (£246 million), Cohen and Greenfield have become “increasingly vocal about their dissatisfaction with the direction of the brand”.

It has been an ever-present “tug of war”, said Sky News. Currently, Magnum is trying to remove the chair of Ben & Jerry’s independent board, stating that "internal investigations” reveal she “no longer meets the criteria”.

There were also fears that Ben & Jerry’s pro-Gaza activism would derail the spin-off from Unilever, said The Telegraph. Back in 2021, “tensions flared” as the ice cream brand announced it would halt sales in “occupied Palestinian territory”, followed by legal action from Ben & Jerry’s when Unilever “sold distribution rights in Israel and the West Bank to a local licensee”. Last November, Ben & Jerry’s claimed that Unilever had “tried to silence” its social mission by “blocking statements on the conflict in the Middle East”. In a prospectus for investors seen by The Telegraph, Unilever admitted that the political views of Ben & Jerry’s founders could “adversely impact the Group’s reputation, business, financial condition, and results of operations”.

Corporate activism is ‘melting’

When Unilever bought the brand in 2000, Cohen and Greenfield said the company “not only understood their social-mindedness but guaranteed that it could continue without interference”. However, the Trump administration’s “anti-diversity, America-first mindset” is at odds with the “feel-good, save-the-world, ‘kumbaya’ philosophy” that has long fuelled Ben & Jerry’s marketing, said Monocle. Corporate activism, particularly on the left, is “melting”.

Greenfield quit Ben & Jerry’s in September, after more than 50 years. Cohen is still involved and still “in the middle of a bitter feud”, said The Times. He “shows no sign of shrinking away” and will “continue to speak out”. At upcoming conferences, he will “take Unilever and Magnum to task”.

As for Unilever, it “believes it has acted reasonably”. It said it would have allowed Ben & Jerry’s calls for a ceasefire in Gaza, if the brand had “also condemned Hamas terrorism and called for the release of hostages”. It is “to be fair”, hardly “the only big company that shies away from antagonising the White House”.