Imagine a cherished ice cream empire on the brink of collapse, its very identity at risk because of corporate tug-of-wars over values and autonomy. That's the shocking warning from Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben & Jerry's, who fears the brand's destruction if it stays under the control of its new parent, Magnum. But here's where it gets controversial – is this a genuine fight for social justice, or just a power struggle that could alienate customers? Stick around, because the details might surprise you.
10 minutes ago
Pritti Mistry
Business reporter
Ben & Jerry's iconic status hangs by a thread if it doesn't break free from its owner, Magnum, according to the company's co-founder Ben Cohen in an interview with the BBC. His comments add fuel to an ongoing feud between the quirky ice cream maker and its corporate overseers, centered on the brand's freedom to champion social causes and the autonomy of its board of directors. This tension erupted just as Magnum Ice Cream Company (TMICC) began trading on the European stock market, having been spun off from its previous owner, Unilever.
A spokesperson for Magnum emphasized that the company is committed to enhancing Ben & Jerry's 'powerful, non-partisan values-based position in the world.' To help newcomers grasp this, think of it as Magnum promising to keep the brand's heart – its dedication to issues like fairness and ethics – alive and strong, without letting it drift into partisan politics.
Back in 2000, when Ben & Jerry's was acquired by Unilever, the deal included a special provision allowing the brand to keep an independent board. This board, separate from Unilever's main decisions, gave Ben & Jerry's the power to steer its own social mission, like supporting environmental causes or advocating for marginalized communities. For example, the brand has famously campaigned against climate change, donating portions of profits to related initiatives.
Yet, since the sale, tensions have simmered and now escalated under Magnum's watch. In 2021, Ben & Jerry's made headlines by halting sales in Israeli-occupied territories, a bold stand that led Unilever to transfer its Israeli operations to a local partner. And this October, Cohen revealed that the company was blocked from introducing a new flavor symbolizing 'solidarity with Palestine.' These moves highlight how the brand intertwines its products with activism – a strategy that builds loyalty among fans but can spark heated debates about business mixing with politics.
And this is the part most people miss – the internal drama escalated last month, right before the spin-off from Unilever. Magnum declared that Anuradha Mittal, who has chaired Ben & Jerry's board since 2018, no longer qualified for the role, citing an internal audit. The spokesperson for Magnum pointed to 'a series of material deficiencies in financial controls, governance, and other compliance policies, including conflicts of interest.' They added that the trustees hadn't fully resolved these issues yet.
Mittal fired back in a statement to Reuters, calling the audit 'a manufactured inquiry engineered to discredit me.' She stressed that this wasn't just a personal attack but an effort by Unilever to erode the board's authority. We've reached out to Ben & Jerry's for their take on this.
Cohen dismissed Magnum's right to decide the board chair, arguing that such interference shows they're unfit to own the brand. He proposed two paths forward: either sell to a group of investors who embrace the brand's ethos, or have Magnum perform a complete reversal by backing the independent board's chair. Just before the spin-off on Monday, Reuters reported that Mittal has no intention of resigning.
Cohen, still on Ben & Jerry's payroll and its vocal face, worries that under Magnum, the brand's devoted fans – those who buy not just ice cream but a sense of purpose – will drift away forever. 'If Magnum keeps owning it, the values will vanish, and so will the brand's core spirit,' he warned. 'It'll just turn into another bland frozen treat losing massive market share.'
This debate raises eyebrows: Should brands prioritize profits over principles, or can they blend both without alienating half their audience? It's a sticky topic, and opinions are divided.
Meanwhile, Cohen's co-founder Jerry Greenfield stepped down in September after nearly 50 years, citing the suppression of the brand's social mission. Cohen called that reasoning 'absurd,' insisting it's about honoring a legal contract and core values. He noted that Magnum investors are paying extra for Ben & Jerry's loyal customer base. 'As they erode those values, they'll crush the following and the brand itself,' he said.
Magnum's spokesperson maintains that Ben & Jerry's isn't up for sale and that they've 'always respected' its social commitments. The demerger from Unilever kicked off with Magnum's shares starting at €12.20 (£10.66) on the EuroNext exchange in Amsterdam, slightly below the anticipated €12.80 (£11.18). However, it rallied to close up 1.3%. This spin-off positions Magnum as the globe's largest independent ice cream giant.
What do you think – is Ben Cohen's fear justified, or is Magnum right to steer the ship toward more traditional business practices? Does mixing ice cream with activism strengthen a brand or just invite trouble? Share your thoughts in the comments; I'd love to hear if you agree with Cohen's stance or see a counterpoint here!
