Ben & Jerry’s CEO David Stever was fired by parent company Unilever, which has caused a major legal battle and has rekindled the tensions around corporate control and political activism. Ben & Jerry’s has claimed that Stever’s ouster was an attempt to quell the brand’s activism. However, Unilever argues that no such decisions are made by its leaders unless they are decided by the corporation. This dispute has broader implications regarding the relationship between corporations that are socially conscious and their owners.
The Controversial Firing of David Stever
Unilever removed David Stever, who was CEO of Ben & Jerry’s since 1988 and had become CEO in 2023. Ben & Jerry’s called it a blatant violation of the 2000 merger agreement that allowed the brand to have an independent board to look after its values. Filing a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, it also claims that Unilever has tried to interfere with brand leadership and breached its part of the deal.
However, Unilever has rejected the accusation, saying the decision was not political but part of standard corporate governance and had criticized the position taken by Ben & Jerry’s of ‘making private conversations public’. Ben & Jerry’s claims that the firing did not follow proper procedures while the multinational corporation maintains that it performed its firing according to method and that it did not consult its independent board, which led to the company applying the termination illegitimately.
The Role of Political Activism in the Dispute
Ben & Jerry’s has a long history of engaging in political and social activism. Openly advocating for Black Lives Matter, LGBTQ+, and climate action movements, the brand has been branding itself this way. Nevertheless, Unilever’s politically neutral corporate ethos has sometimes clashed with this activism.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been one of Ben & Jerry’s biggest points of contention with its business partner. The ice cream brand made the decision in 2021 to stop selling products in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, which the company cited human rights concerns. Ben & Jerry’s decision did, however, prompt a pushback and roofing of lawsuits, and Unilever intervened to reverse course out of Ben & Jerry’s stance.
Unilever’s Justification and Response
A Unilever spokeswoman responded by saying the leadership change had been a business decision and not politically motivated. Ben & Jerry’s insists the company maintains respect for its independence but has a right to oversee leadership appointments.
A Unilever spokesperson said, the company had attempted repeatedly to engage with the Ben & Jerry’s board and made decisions about leadership in accordance with corporate policies. However, given the history of disputes between the two companies and the lack of transparency, many doubt whether or not Unilever truly plans to uphold Ben & Jerry’s activist mission.
Corporate Control vs. Brand Identity
It serves as a spotlight for a fundamental issue brands are struggling with when they are under corporate ownership: what level of aloofness should socially conscious brands have when it comes to political and social matters? Ben & Jerry’s, as a values-driven company, has always based its positioning and now customers expect the company to stand by its principles. For instance, although Unilever is an activist company, profitability and market stability still remain the company’s priority, which may sometimes clash with political activism.
This case could establish a precedent on how corporations approach brands with very activist identities. If it wins its lawsuit, and if Ben & Jerry’s wins its lawsuit, it might fuel the impression that independent boards can still play a role in protecting brand values.
