Jerry Quits Ben & Jerry’s, Claiming Company Has Been ‘Silenced, Sidelined’
He spoke out against the Trump administration in his announcement about his departure.
Ben & Jerry’s co-founder Jerry Greenfield is leaving the ice cream brand after 47 years, saying that the independence it once had to speak up on social issues has been stifled by parent company Unilever.
In a letter that co-founder Ben Cohen posted on social media platform X on Greenfield’s behalf, Greenfield said that he felt the independence the brand had to speak on social issues and events was lost to Unilever.
“For more than 20 years under their ownership, Ben & Jerry’s stood up and spoke out in support of peace, justice and human rights, not as abstract concepts, but in relation to real events happening in our world,” he wrote. “That independence existed in no small part because of the unique merger agreement Ben and I negotiated with Unilever, one that enshrined our social mission and values in the company’s governance structure in perpetuity. It’s profoundly disappointing to come to the conclusion that that independence, the very basis of our sale to Unilever, is gone.”
Damn it. Now I might have to boycott them, and I eat a lot of B&J. have at least four cartons in my freezer, usually more, at all times. A third of a carton of B&J is my evening dessert most nights.
He doesn’t seem very clear on what Unilever actually did to prompt this.
A while back, my mom decided to support a Canadian ice cream company because she read a piece about how they continued to pay all their staff after a fire at their facility. She wasn’t their customer before that because she thought their product was pretty low quality. Her new enthusiasm lasted one purchase because the ice cream was still lousy. Sometimes the ice cream is the most important part.
What intrigued me about this story was the merger agreement with Unilever. By Jerry’s account, Ben & Jerry’s was able to continue pursuing its “social mission and values” for over 20 years after the merger. That’s not nothing.
However, if this agreement had been binding “in perpetuity” as Jerry thought, Unilever would not be able to undo it now.
So could a smaller company joining a larger firm craft a merger agreement more legally binding than this one? Or is the larger firm always in the position to simply renege on its promises?
The story at the link says Unilever is spinning off its ice cream brands to a stand alone company. Maybe that changes the terms of the deal and Jerry is reacting to that.
In Unilever’s defense, they may be afraid of a lawsuit. A long time Trump methodology is to file lawsuits as a form of intimidation against entities he considers enemies.
All respect to Ben and Jerry for being able to craft such a deal when they were being bought out, and it speaks volumes for the value of their brand that they were able to carry it off for twenty years. If, at their ages, they haven’t learned that nothing is forever except greed and lust for power, I am sorry for their naïveté.
Jerry leaving will have no effect whatever. Flouncing never does.
Yep. Not wanting to be a part of something he can no longer control, which was a core element of his company, is admirable. Now that he’s no longer with the company, he’s free to speak out as loud and as often as he wants, with no censorship from Unilever.
But he can’t speak by means of the products any more, which is surely whence they got whatever influence they had. I suppose they can’t stop him from speaking out as “Jerry, formerly of Ben and Jerry’s,” for what that’s worth.
As we’ve all learned, a contract (or constitution) is only as strong as the ability to enforce its terms. Unilever may be under a binding contract, and just ignoring it. 10 years and a few million later and Jerry might win the lawsuit, and the ousted CEO is put back in charge, but by then does it matter?
If Unilever or Magnus or whoever are going to fight and contravene every decision the old guard make, it might be time to leave.
Ben is staying to try to fight the good fight from within.
Neither Ben nor Jerry were involved in the company’s operations after Unilever bought them, they were solely there for the social mission. The main issue is that none of the Unilever executive who were involved in the original purchase agreement are with the company anymore, so the understanding between B&J and Unilever over what the spirit of the agreement was faded away.
Reading through the lines in the reports over the past few weeks is that Unilever is afraid that B&J will piss off Trump, so they have started censoring B&J’s statements.
People do not quit succesful business’ So it must be a failing business. Jerry is just taking this opportunity to get out and retire. The rest is just Media fluff.
Chapman’s Ice Cream makes a good product, at a good price, and they run their business honourably. They also supported their staff during COVID and offered up freezer space for vaccine storage if required.
It wasn’t mentioned in the statement, presumably because the litigation is (from what I can gather) ongoing. But this didn’t come out of nowhere. And I have no reason to believe this was anything other than a principled decision.
It’s standard business for corporations to “play ‘D’” when it comes to controversial issues that may negatively impact their businesses. I’m not saying it’s fair or right or whatever, but I understand it.
In education, staff is well aware that, in the event of student or parent accusations, administration is going to give you the ax because, even if you are innocent, they do not want to appear to be protecting the guilty.
I can’t think of a major business that doesn’t record customer calls for (nudge, wink), “quality assurance”. The message should, instead, be: “to cover our asses”.