A significant rift has emerged between the ice cream brand Ben & Jerry's and its parent company, Unilever, concerning leadership changes and the brand's commitment to social activism. The dispute centers around the removal of David Stever, who has served as CEO of Ben & Jerry's since 2023. According to a recent court filing, Unilever decided on March 3 to remove Stever, not due to performance issues but because of his dedication to advancing the brand’s social mission. This action is perceived by Ben & Jerry's as an attempt by Unilever to stifle the brand's political and social advocacy efforts.

The longstanding tension between the two entities stems from differing views on how Ben & Jerry's should engage with public issues. Known for taking strong stances on topics such as climate change and human rights, the brand recently introduced a new flavor in collaboration with a refugee network. The court document accuses Unilever of pressuring Ben & Jerry's employees, including Stever, to abandon their social missions. Additionally, last month, the ice cream brand alleged that Unilever sought to prevent it from criticizing former US President Donald Trump. These disagreements have intensified following Ben & Jerry's decision to halt sales in the West Bank and advocate for peace in Gaza, leading to legal actions against Unilever for allegedly obstructing the brand's support for Palestinian refugees.

Amid these disputes, the importance of preserving the unique identity and values of Ben & Jerry's has come to the forefront. Established in the 1970s by Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, the brand prides itself on its progressive stance and innovative product line. Anuradha Mittal, chair of Ben & Jerry's independent board, emphasized that Stever has successfully driven both the brand's social initiatives and financial success, surpassing other segments within Unilever's portfolio. Despite this, Unilever maintains that decisions regarding the CEO position fall under its jurisdiction, as per the acquisition agreement, while encouraging engagement through established channels. As this conflict unfolds, it highlights the broader debate over corporate responsibility and the preservation of brand authenticity amidst global conglomerate ownership.