The news came not in an official press release but in a solemn message posted by Ben Cohen on social media: Jerry Greenfield, his lifelong friend and co-founder of the iconic ice cream brand Ben & Jerry’s, was stepping down after 47 years. The reason, according to Greenfield’s letter, was heartbreakingly simple yet deeply complicated: The company’s storied social mission had been “silenced” by its corporate parent, Unilever.
This is not a sudden split but the culmination of a quarter-century-long struggle for the soul of a company. The breakup is a cautionary tale for the burgeoning world of “conscious capitalism,” and it forces a reckoning with a central question: Can a values-driven company maintain its integrity under the thumb of a multinational conglomerate?
From the moment the first scoop was served in a renovated gas station in Burlington, Vermont in 1978, Ben & Jerry’s was about more than just ice cream. Cohen and Greenfield pioneered the “double bottom line,” measuring success not just by profit but by social impact. They established a foundation that donates a percentage of pre-tax profits, implemented a “5-to-1 ratio” that capped executive pay and used their product as a platform for activism, from campaigning for voting rights to advocating for fair trade.
The defining moment of this story came in 2000 when Unilever acquired the company for $326 million. The deal was controversial but it came with an extraordinary condition: Ben & Jerry’s would retain an independent board with the power to uphold and expand its social mission. For more than two decades, that agreement largely held, allowing the brand to take progressive stances on issues like climate change and racial justice, often to the discomfort of its corporate owner.
The feud with Unilever became public in 2021 when the company’s decision to cease sales in the Israeli-occupied West Bank was reversed by Unilever, sparking a lawsuit. This dispute, along with reports of a CEO’s ousting over activism, illustrates that when social mission clashes with corporate profit, the mission is often compromised. For Greenfield, his departure symbolizes the loss of the independence he and Cohen fought for, concluding that the company can no longer fearlessly advocate for its values. This serves as a cautionary lesson for other mission-driven brands about the inherent tension between capitalism and conscience.
