Jerry Greenfield Leaves Ben & Jerry’s, Saying Its Voice Has Been Silenced
The conflict highlights a broader tension in corporate America: how far brands can go in political or social activism when they are owned by large multinationals accountable to shareholders worldwide.
A Co-Founder Steps Away
Jerry Greenfield, co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s, has announced he is leaving the company after nearly five decades. In a statement shared by fellow co-founder Ben Cohen on social media, Greenfield said the ice cream maker’s long-standing independence to speak out on social and political issues has been curtailed under its parent company 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,” Greenfield wrote, according to the Associated Press (AP). He added that the company’s unique merger agreement in 2000 was designed to enshrine its social mission “in perpetuity,” but he believes that independence is now gone.
The Roots of the Dispute
Ben & Jerry’s, founded in Burlington, Vermont in 1978, has built a reputation for combining quirky flavors with outspoken political advocacy. The brand was sold to Unilever in 2000 for $326 million. The deal included an unusual governance structure: an independent board was granted authority over the company’s social mission and brand identity, while Unilever retained financial control.
Tensions have grown in recent years:
In 2021, Ben & Jerry’s announced it would no longer sell ice cream in Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. The decision sparked political controversy and led Unilever to sell its Israeli business to a local company that continued sales in the region under Hebrew and Arabic branding. (Reuters).
In March 2025, Ben & Jerry’s alleged that Unilever unlawfully removed its CEO David Stever in retaliation for supporting the company’s activism. The ice cream maker argued this violated the merger agreement requiring consultation with its independent board (Dairy Reporter).
In November 2024, Ben & Jerry’s sued Unilever in federal court in New York, claiming the company blocked statements supporting Palestinians during the Gaza war and prevented posts about issues such as universal health care and climate change (AP).
Unilever’s and Magnum’s Response
Unilever, based in London, disputes Greenfield’s characterization. A spokesperson for its new ice cream division — which is being spun off as the Magnum Ice Cream Company — thanked Greenfield for his contributions but said the company “disagrees with his perspective.”
Magnum stated it remains committed to Ben & Jerry’s mission, describing the brand as an “iconic, much-loved” company and emphasizing its intent to preserve “peace, love, and ice cream” (Reuters).
Unilever has also said it hopes Ben & Jerry’s board will “engage in the agreed-upon process” for resolving disputes, particularly around executive decisions.
Why This Matters in Vermont
Ben & Jerry’s is not just a brand in Vermont — it is part of the state’s cultural identity. Its activism, from climate change campaigns to marriage equality, has often aligned with progressive movements embraced by many Vermonters.
Greenfield’s resignation underscores a struggle over whether a Vermont-born company can maintain its activist voice while being part of a global corporate structure. As AP reported, Greenfield linked the silencing of Ben & Jerry’s to what he described as broader threats to civil rights and democracy in the United States.
The Bigger Picture: Activism Meets Corporate Governance
The conflict highlights a broader tension in corporate America: how far brands can go in political or social activism when they are owned by large multinationals accountable to shareholders worldwide.
Legal experts note that Ben & Jerry’s merger agreement was unusual in its explicit protection of a “social mission.” Yet the ongoing lawsuits will determine how enforceable those protections really are. If the courts side with Unilever, it could weaken the precedent for other mission-driven companies entering mergers. If Ben & Jerry’s prevails, it may strengthen the case for governance models that protect activism even under corporate ownership.
What Happens Next
Court Cases Continue: Ben & Jerry’s lawsuits against Unilever over CEO removal and blocked messaging are moving through federal courts. Outcomes could reshape how much independence the brand retains.
Ice Cream Spin-Off: By the end of 2025, Unilever plans to complete the spin-off of its ice cream division, creating the Magnum Ice Cream Company. Governance decisions made during this transition will affect Ben & Jerry’s future.
Public Backlash or Support: Customers, employees, and Vermont communities may respond strongly to Greenfield’s departure. The brand’s credibility as an activist company could hinge on whether its social voice is restored or muted.
Future Ownership Questions: Both Greenfield and Cohen have previously suggested they would like Ben & Jerry’s to regain independence, possibly through a buy-back. Unilever has not indicated willingness to sell.
For now, the company continues to operate, but Greenfield’s departure raises new doubts about whether “peace, love, and ice cream” can thrive under corporate control.