The iconic ice cream brand Ben & Jerry’s could be in jeopardy, according to its co-founder Ben Cohen. In an interview with the BBC, Cohen warned that the brand would be “destroyed” if it remains under the ownership of its parent company, Magnum.
The remarks come amid a long-running dispute between Ben & Jerry’s and its parent companies over the brand’s ability to express its social activism and maintain the independence of its board. This conflict has now been inherited by Magnum, which recently spun off from Unilever to become a standalone publicly-traded company.
Cohen, who remains an employee of Ben & Jerry’s, fears that the brand’s “loyal” followers would be lost for good if it continues to be owned by Magnum. “If the company continues to be owned by Magnum, not only will the values be lost, but the essence of the brand will be lost,” he told the BBC.
The latest flashpoint in the ongoing saga is the decision by Magnum to remove Anuradha Mittal, the chair of Ben & Jerry’s independent board, citing “a series of material deficiencies in financial controls, governance and other compliance policies, including conflicts of interest.” Mittal, however, has disputed these claims, describing the “so-called audit” as a “manufactured inquiry” aimed at undermining the authority of the board.
Cohen has accused Magnum of being “not fit to own Ben & Jerry’s” and has called for the business to be “owned by a group of investors that support the brand and want to encourage the values” or for Magnum to make a “180 degree turn around and say they support the chairman of the independent board.”
The dispute over the brand’s social mission has been a long-standing issue, with Ben & Jerry’s previously refusing to sell its products in areas occupied by Israel and attempting to launch an ice cream expressing “solidarity with Palestine” – a move that was blocked by Unilever.
As Magnum continues to assert its control over the iconic brand, the future of Ben & Jerry’s and its commitment to social activism remains uncertain. The outcome of this clash could have significant implications for the brand’s loyal following and its ability to maintain its unique identity within the increasingly competitive ice cream market.