Ben & Jerry's versus Unilever: End of business do-gooderism

An ice-cream brand valued for its values is being shed by its owner

- BETH KOWITT

When Unilever agreed to buy Ben & Jerry's in 2000, the consumer giant was looking to acquire not just the small Vermont company's ice-cream operation, but also its quirky, do-gooder ethos, which Unilever hoped to inject into its larger corporate culture. For two decades, it was a happy union. Ben & Jerry's grew into a €1 billion brand and got to preserve its social mission and independence, while Unilever capitalized on its position as the poster child for the corporate doing-well-by-doing-good movement.

Those days are over.

Ben & Jerry's independent board sued Unilever last week, alleging that its parent company broke an agreement by silencing its attempts to speak out in support of Palestinian rights. It's just the latest development in the falling out between the two brands, which began before the Gaza War, in 2021, when Ben & Jerry's said it would stop doing business in the Israeli-occupied West Bank because it was "inconsistent with our values."

The clash is about more than the war in Gaza. Across corporate America, the calculus for companies has shifted wildly when it comes to speaking out and taking a stand. No topic today is apolitical, no issue uncontroversial.