The controversy surrounding Ben & Jerry's has intensified significantly with the recent removal of three independent board members, sparking a heated debate about corporate governance and social activism. This move comes amid the company’s implementation of new governance policies, one of which enforces a maximum nine-year term limit for board members. Notably, Anuradha Mittal, the chair who publicly declared she had no intention of resigning in response to pressure, is among those affected by this change.
The company’s decision has drawn sharp criticism from Ben Cohen, one of the original founders of Ben & Jerry’s. Cohen described the action as a 'blatant power grab' intended to diminish the board’s authority and independence—a statement that underscores the ongoing power struggle between the brand’s social mission and its corporate ownership.
This dispute is not new. Ben & Jerry’s has long been at the center of conflicts involving its social activism and the independence of its governance structure, especially relative to its parent corporation. According to sources, Mittal will leave the organization immediately, while other board members, Daryn Dodson and Jennifer Henderson, are scheduled to step down by the end of the year.
Ben Cohen emphasized that these three individuals—Mittal, Dodson, and Henderson—have served with integrity and courage over the years, playing crucial roles in guiding the company through difficult decisions to preserve its social values. He openly stated that the recent governance changes are aimed explicitly at preserving and strengthening Ben & Jerry’s core social mission and integrity.
The Vermont-based brand was recently spun off from Unilever, now operating under The Magnum Ice Cream Company after a deal finalized last week that established it as the world’s largest independent ice cream producer. Magnum has expressed its desire to bolster Ben & Jerry’s position as a strong, non-partisan, values-driven brand on the global stage.
However, Cohen warns that Ben & Jerry’s legacy—its identity as a socially conscious company—could be jeopardized if it remains under Magnum’s control. The brand’s history of activism, such as refusing to sell products in territories occupied by Israel in 2021, exemplifies its commitment to social causes. Following this decision, Unilever sold its Israeli operations to a local licensee, further highlighting the ongoing tension.
Adding to the complexity, co-founder Jerry Greenfield left the company in September after nearly 50 years, citing the loss of independence following Unilever’s interference with its activism efforts. A public letter shared by Cohen revealed that Greenfield believed Ben & Jerry’s autonomy had been compromised under Unilever’s ownership, especially when it came to its social mission.
This series of events shines a light on a broader debate about corporate responsibility, independence, and the role of activism within large multinational companies. Do you believe companies like Ben & Jerry’s should prioritize their social missions above all else, even at the risk of internal conflicts and disagreements? Or do you see the recent governance changes as necessary for future stability? Share your thoughts and join the conversation—this is one debate that’s not likely to be settled anytime soon.
