Towards the end of last year, Ben & Jerry’s, the company I helped establish, joined a new ice cream group, The Company, after the . Shortly thereafter, Magnum began restricting the authority of Ben & Jerry’s autonomous board, which was formed to safeguard the company’s social objectives. This action fundamentally challenges the essence of Ben & Jerry’s and its foundational purpose. Our brand identity is intrinsically linked to its core values.
On January 11, members of Ben & Jerry’s independent board filed a lawsuit, alleging that Magnum prevented the appointment of former executive Chris Miller to a directorship. The legal document claims Magnum initially endorsed the nomination but later withdrew its support after implementing new board criteria in December, which led to the removal of the board’s chair and two other members. This legal action intensifies an ongoing disagreement regarding ultimate control over Ben & Jerry’s public stance and principles.
The core of this disagreement revolves around a crucial question: Is Ben & Jerry’s entitled, as stipulated in a distinctive acquisition contract, to independently oversee its social mission and adopt public positions that might diverge from commercial interests?
The significance of this answer lies in the fact that this conflict extends beyond mere board positions or corporate procedures. It concerns who determines Ben & Jerry’s principles—encompassing the makeup of its autonomous board, its public campaigning, and even the ice cream flavors it is permitted to market.
As an illustration, in October 2025, Ben & Jerry’s independent board endorsed the development of a statement advocating for a ceasefire in Gaza. Ben & Jerry’s leadership, then operating under Unilever’s ownership, .
When Jerry and I launched Ben & Jerry’s from a in 1978, our aim wasn’t to establish a renowned ice cream brand. Instead, we sought to create an enterprise founded on a straightforward principle: that a business could equally prioritize excellent ice cream, societal good, and financial success. From its inception, the social objective (leveraging business influence to ) and the commercial objective (generating profit) were not distinct paths. They functioned as parallel components of a single endeavor.
We contend that the strength of business resides in incorporating social advantages into both long-term strategies and daily operations: how goods are produced, how employees are managed, how assets are utilized, and how sway is exerted.
This necessitates posing challenging inquiries. How can we procure ingredients in methods that uplift small-scale farmers and Indigenous communities instead of exploiting them? How do we formulate environmental and energy policies that mitigate damage? How do we manage our financial affairs to reduce, rather than expand, the disparity between the affluent and the impoverished?
A business’s most potent instrument is its public platform. When companies voice their opinions, the public pays attention. The press listens. Lawmakers listen. Consequently, when Ben & Jerry’s expresses its views, we are actively advocating for shifts in governmental policy. Altering government policy is paramount; without it, efforts remain superficial.
Leveraging corporate influence to shape government policy is a common practice within American business. Corporations allocate billions to lobbying and political contributions to safeguard their interests. The distinction lies in how many entities pursue this discreetly to boost profits. At Ben & Jerry’s, we have consistently done so transparently to combat injustice.
This conviction informed our choices—and it’s also why, when , I was reluctant to sell. My hesitation wasn’t specifically due to Unilever, but rather because large corporations typically adhere to a consistent rationale: prioritizing profits above all else.
My concern was that if Ben & Jerry’s were acquired by a global conglomerate, its social mission would be the initial aspect to be marginalized.
I was unable to prevent the sale, as shareholders approved it. However, I strenuously advocated for the company’s protection. This led us, during negotiations, to establish an unparalleled arrangement in American corporate history: an autonomous board vested with genuine, legally enforceable power over Ben & Jerry’s social objectives, brand reputation, and equity pledges. For over twenty years, this framework proved effective. Currently, the boundaries of that autonomy are being challenged.
Over several decades, our positions on racial equity, LGBTQ+ rights, democratic principles, ecological preservation, peace, labor entitlements, and global human rights have bolstered the brand. We adopted these stances not because they were trendy or lucrative, but because they were morally correct.
And consumers recognize this distinction.
My efforts to establish an independent board were not intended for it to merely endorse a parent company’s directives. I championed it because I understood Ben & Jerry’s required a mechanism to safeguard its core identity.
We now contend that Magnum is attempting to diminish Ben & Jerry’s autonomy and influence. Jerry and I have reached the conclusion that Ben & Jerry’s foundational values will cease to exist under Magnum’s proprietorship. This is why we initiated the Free Ben and Jerry’s campaign, aiming to reinstate the company’s independence.
When Jerry and I launched our initial establishment, we were doing more than just mastering ice cream production. We were devising a method to demonstrate that one can generate profit while simultaneously employing business influence to champion justice.
And for this reason, I will state it unequivocally: Ben & Jerry’s cannot endure without its fundamental essence.
