How Ben & Jerry’s Mixed Ice Cream with Activism

1978: Where the Ben & Jerry’s Story Began

Source: Ben & Jerry's (2025)

In 1978, two friends from Vermont (Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield) decided to take a chance on a $5 ice-cream making

course. With little more than enthusiasm and a beat-up petrol station to work from, they launched Ben & Jerry’s.

Their ice cream wasn’t just about taste. It was about chunky, creative flavours that stood out from the crowd which included Cherry Garcia, Phish Food, and Half Baked. But more than that, it was about values. From the very start, Ben & Jerry’s used its voice to campaign on issues like climate change, fair trade, and equality. Customers loved the mix of indulgent ice cream with a side of activism.

2000: The Turning Point

By 2000, Ben & Jerry’s had grown far beyond its Vermont roots. To expand further, it agreed to be bought by multinational giant Unilever.

But there was a twist, unlike most takeovers, this deal included a special clause. Ben & Jerry’s would keep independence over its social mission. The founders wanted to make sure the activism survived the corporate shift. For years, it seemed to work. The company kept speaking out on social issues, while enjoying global reach and investment from its new parent.

As the years went on, tensions emerged. Some campaigns were riskier than others. When Ben & Jerry’s announced in 2021 that it would stop selling ice cream in Israeli-occupied territories, controversy exploded. Political backlash, lawsuits, and shareholder concerns all followed.

From Jerry Greenfield’s perspective, the very heart of the brand (its activist voice) was being chipped away. He claimed Unilever was increasingly stepping in to restrict what the company could say.

2025: Jerry Greenfield Quits

Source: BBC News (2025)

In September 2025, Jerry Greenfield announced he was stepping down from the company he had co-founded nearly five decades earlier. His explanation was blunt: he felt that Ben & Jerry’s had been “silenced”.

Greenfield argued that Unilever was no longer honouring the independence promised in the takeover deal. He believed the brand could no longer freely campaign on the issues it cared about most, from human rights to international conflicts.

His resignation sends a strong message to employees, customers, and the wider business world. It suggests a deep divide between the original activist spirit of Ben & Jerry’s and the more cautious, risk-averse approach of its corporate parent.

Without its founders, Ben & Jerry’s could struggle to maintain credibility as an activist brand. Customers may start to question whether its campaigns are genuine or just marketing. On the other hand, Unilever might feel freer to tone down controversial activism and focus on sales growth.

Greenfield’s exit wasn’t just a personal decision, it was a warning sign about what happens when a brand built on values clashes with a parent company focused on global consistency and profit.

Questions for Business Students:

1. Explain how being owned by Unilever has created conflicts for Ben & Jerry’s activist brand identity?

2. Do you think activism strengthens or weakens a brand in the long run? Why?

The Potential for a Classroom Debate

After claiming the brand had been silenced by its parent company Unilever, the resignation of Ben & Jerry’s co-founder Jerry Greenfield in 2025 has raised a big question for all businesses:

Should companies be outspoken on social and political issues, or should they stick to making products and profits?

Split into two teams and prepare your arguments using the blog post and your own ideas.