Jerry Greenfield, co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s, has stepped down after 47 years, saying parent company Unilever is stifling the brand’s activist voice.
His exit highlights a deeper struggle over whether the iconic ice cream maker can continue to blend social change with business under corporate ownership.
Exit Letter
In a public letter, Greenfield explained that Ben & Jerry’s had lost the freedom to speak independently on social issues. He described feeling sidelined as Unilever restricted the activism that once made the brand unique, writing that he could no longer support decisions that “erode the integrity of our mission.”
Ben Cohen’s Support
Greenfield’s co-founder, Ben Cohen, quickly voiced support. Posting on X, Cohen called the resignation “sad but not surprising,” saying Unilever’s handling of the brand had left little room for authentic activism. His words underscored how far the founders’ vision has drifted from corporate priorities.
Activist Tradition
Since opening its first Vermont scoop shop in 1978, Ben & Jerry’s has used ice cream as a platform for advocacy. The company has spoken out on racial justice, climate change, LGBTQ+ rights, and democracy reform, becoming one of the rare brands where activism was inseparable from marketing and product identity.
The 2000 Deal
When Unilever bought Ben & Jerry’s in 2000, critics feared activism would be swallowed by corporate control. To ease concerns, the companies signed a groundbreaking merger agreement granting the brand an independent board to oversee its social mission. For years, this arrangement allowed the brand to operate with unusual freedom inside a global conglomerate.
Cracks in the Agreement
That agreement is now a flashpoint. In 2024, the independent board sued Unilever for allegedly breaching its commitments, citing interference in activist campaigns and board decisions. Greenfield’s resignation comes against this backdrop, reinforcing doubts about whether Unilever still respects the deal made 25 years ago.
Ice Cream Spin-Off
The timing adds more uncertainty. Unilever plans to spin off its entire ice cream business into a separate entity, the Magnum Ice Cream Company, set to debut on the stock market this November. The restructuring raises questions about whether Ben & Jerry’s activism will survive under a business driven by shareholder expectations.
Corporate Response
Unilever has rejected Greenfield’s criticisms, saying it remains committed to Ben & Jerry’s “three-part mission” of product quality, economic success, and social impact. A spokesperson described the brand as a “thriving part” of the portfolio and emphasized plans to carry its values forward under the new spin-off.
Activism in Action
Over the years, Ben & Jerry’s activism has gone beyond words. The company’s founders were once arrested during a Capitol Hill protest against U.S. detention policies. In May of this year, Ben got detained over fierce protests against the slaughter of children in Gaza at a Senate hearing. The brand has taken strong stances on climate change, supported racial justice, and pushed for LGBTQ+ rights. These efforts helped shape its reputation as more than an ice cream company.
Bigger Question
Greenfield’s resignation reignites a broader debate: can socially conscious brands remain outspoken under multinational ownership? Advocates see his departure as evidence that activism eventually collides with profit motives, while others argue that Ben & Jerry’s has still done more than most companies to use business as a force for good.
What Comes Next
The future of Ben & Jerry’s will hinge on whether its activist legacy survives without one of its founders. Customers loyal to the brand’s social voice may watch closely as the spin-off unfolds, testing whether “peace, love, and ice cream” can endure in an era of tighter corporate control.
