Brands and geopolitics: A marriage made in conflict

Ben & Jerry's spat with owner Unilever reflects vast ideological differences in linking brands with activism

- RAJRISHI SINGHAL

Conic ice-cream company Ben & Jerry's (B&J), founded by two hippies based on knowledge gained through a $5-correspondence-course, is taking on the might of its parent, the Anglo-Dutch multinational Unilever. The issue: Unilever has sacked B&J's chief executive, ostensibly for the ice-cream company's public support for Palestinian refugees, in alleged contravention of their merger agreement of 2000 that B&J's board would retain its independence.

It's a classic David-versus-Goliath spectator sport. But the essence of this spat between the owners of dominant brands—a popular ice-cream maker (this columnist's preferred flavour remains Cherry Garcia, launched in 1985 as homage to Grateful Dead lead guitarist and vocalist Jerry Garcia) and a consumer goods conglomerate—is the influence that geopolitics can have on brands. Or, conversely, how brands influence geopolitics.

Brands have always been influential in changing the course of geopolitics. Go back 110 years to 1914, the eve of World War I. The ensuing war sounded a death knell for the Ottoman Empire, with the 1916 Anglo-French Sykes-Picot agreement signed to divide the area between two colonial powers. The US and Russia also wanted in on the carve-up. By 1923, arbitrary lines were drawn in the sand and from the West Asian desert sprang new nation-states: Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan. Anthony Sampson's book,