Ben & Jerry’s Accuses Unilever of Silencing Its Social Mission, Alleges CEO’s Ouster
The relationship between ice cream maker Ben & Jerry’s and its parent company, Unilever, has reportedly deteriorated significantly, with Ben & Jerry’s alleging that Unilever is actively suppressing its social mission and that the company’s CEO was removed due to his support for the company’s political stances.
In a recent filing with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Ben & Jerry’s asserted that Unilever has violated the terms of their merger agreement by repeatedly attempting to "silence" the ice cream company’s commitment to social activism. The filing alleges a pattern of behavior by Unilever aimed at curtailing Ben & Jerry’s ability to express its views on political and social issues, particularly those related to Palestinian refugees.
According to the filing, Unilever has allegedly threatened Ben & Jerry’s personnel, including CEO David Stever, with consequences if they failed to comply with Unilever’s efforts to suppress the company’s social mission. The document states that Unilever has repeatedly pressured Stever and other employees to refrain from expressing support for Palestinian refugees and other causes aligned with Ben & Jerry’s long-standing values.
As of this writing, Unilever has not issued a formal response to USA TODAY’s request for comment regarding the allegations made by Ben & Jerry’s.
The Tuesday filing further details the extent of Unilever’s alleged "suppression" of Ben & Jerry’s social mission. The ice cream maker claims that Unilever "without explanation" blocked Ben & Jerry’s from posting a statement in support of Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate and Palestinian refugee who claims he is being held as a political prisoner for speaking out against Israel’s attacks on Gaza the previous year.
The blocked post, as included in the filing obtained by USA TODAY, stated: "Protect the First Amendment! Free speech and peaceful protests are the lifeblood of our democracy, and student activists have always been at the center of the fight for justice. Political speech is protected by our constitution, and peaceful civil disobedience should never be the basis for deportation. Protect your right to dissent and take action with the @ACLU."
Ben & Jerry’s also intended to include a link to an ACLU petition in support of Khalil within the post.
In addition to the Khalil incident, Ben & Jerry’s alleges that Unilever also blocked a planned post in celebration of Black History Month in February. This incident, along with others, suggests a broader pattern of censorship by Unilever targeting Ben & Jerry’s social messaging.
A previous filing in February outlined further instances of alleged suppression of Ben & Jerry’s social views. In that filing, the company claimed that Unilever ice cream chief Peter ter Kulve unilaterally banned it from issuing any posts critical of then-President Donald Trump pending further review.
Ben & Jerry’s stated that Ter Kulve had previously banned a planned post on hot-button issues during Trump’s inauguration on January 20, because the post made mention of the incoming president. These instances suggest a growing tension between Ben & Jerry’s commitment to social activism and Unilever’s apparent desire to control the company’s public messaging.
The initial lawsuit, filed back in November 2024, outlined Ben & Jerry’s concerns about Unilever’s threats to dismantle an independent board established in 2000 when Ben & Jerry’s was acquired by Unilever. According to court documents, the independent board is responsible for safeguarding Ben & Jerry’s values and mission. Ben & Jerry’s alleges that Unilever made these threats after the company attempted to support Palestinian refugees.
The filing stated, "Unilever threatened to dismantle the Independent Board and sue the board members individually if Ben & Jerry’s – with its decades-long motto of ‘peace, love & ice cream’ – issued the statement supporting ‘peace’ and a ‘ceasefire’."
The controversy surrounding Ben & Jerry’s CEO, David Stever, is central to the dispute. Ben & Jerry’s alleges that the reason for Stever’s proposed removal by Unilever is solely due to his "commitment to Ben & Jerry’s Social Mission," rather than any legitimate concerns regarding his performance history. This allegation suggests that Unilever is attempting to remove Stever due to his vocal support for Ben & Jerry’s social activism and political stances.
The clash between Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever highlights the challenges inherent in merging a socially conscious brand with a large multinational corporation. Ben & Jerry’s has built its brand on a commitment to social justice and environmental sustainability, while Unilever is a global company with a broader range of interests. The conflict raises questions about the extent to which a parent company can or should control the social messaging of its subsidiaries, especially when those subsidiaries have a long history of social activism.
The outcome of the lawsuit and the ongoing dispute between Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever could have significant implications for the future of socially conscious brands and their ability to operate within larger corporate structures. It remains to be seen whether Ben & Jerry’s will be able to maintain its commitment to social activism under Unilever’s ownership or whether Unilever will succeed in curtailing the company’s political expression.
The allegations made by Ben & Jerry’s are serious and raise concerns about Unilever’s commitment to respecting the values and mission of its subsidiaries. The case will likely be closely watched by other socially conscious brands and investors interested in the intersection of business and social responsibility.
