In a filing on Tuesday night in Manhattan federal court, Ben & Jerry’s stated that Unilever informed the company on March 3 of its decision to “remove and replace” Stever. This move comes after Unilever allegedly threatened Ben & Jerry’s personnel if they did not comply with the parent company’s efforts to “silence the social mission” of the iconic ice cream brand.
Stever, who has been with Ben & Jerry’s since 1988 when he was hired as a tour guide, was named CEO in May 2023. His ousting marks a significant escalation in the ongoing conflict between the two companies.
A Battle Over Independence and Social Activism
The new accusations are part of Ben & Jerry’s lawsuit against Unilever, which seeks to halt the parent company’s alleged efforts to dismantle Ben & Jerry’s independent board and curtail its social activism.
Unilever acquired Ben & Jerry’s in 2000, but the relationship has been strained since 2021, when Ben & Jerry’s decided to halt sales in the West Bank, a move that Unilever opposed. The business in the West Bank was later sold, but the disagreement highlighted the growing rift between the two companies over social and political issues.
Allegations of Silencing Criticism
Last month, Ben & Jerry’s accused Unilever of unilaterally banning it from publicly criticizing former U.S. President Donald Trump. According to the ice cream maker, this decision was driven by the “new dynamic” created by corporate rollbacks of social policies deemed too liberal by the U.S. administration.
A Clash of Values
The dispute underscores the challenges faced by socially conscious brands under corporate ownership. Ben & Jerry’s has long been known for its progressive stances on issues such as climate change, racial justice, and LGBTQ+ rights. However, Unilever’s efforts to align the brand with its broader corporate strategy have led to repeated clashes over the extent of Ben & Jerry’s independence.
What’s Next?
As the legal battle unfolds, the future of Ben & Jerry’s social mission remains uncertain. The removal of Stever and the ongoing tensions with Unilever raise questions about whether the brand can maintain its identity as a champion of social activism under corporate ownership.