Ben & Jerry’s stoked controversy on Thursday after its independent board issued a statement labeling the conflict in Gaza a “genocide” — placing renewed strain on its already tense relationship with parent company Unilever.
“We stand with all who raise their voices against genocide in Gaza—from petition-signers to street marchers to those risking arrest,” the left-leaning ice cream maker’s board said in a statement that was first reported by The Wall Street Journal.
“When humanity is at stake, silence is not an option, now is the time to speak truth to power.”
The statement marks one of the most forceful corporate condemnations of Israel’s conduct in Gaza since the conflict began, and could further deepen the divide between Ben & Jerry’s progressive board and the more cautious multinational that owns it.
Ben & Jerry’s has long used its brand to champion progressive causes. In 2021, it stopped selling ice cream in Israeli-occupied territories, citing inconsistency with its values — a move that triggered backlash, shareholder divestment and legal disputes with parent company Unilever.
Though the matter was settled in 2022, a new lawsuit alleges Unilever has again tried to silence the brand’s support for Palestinian rights.
Unilever on Thursday quickly moved to distance itself from the board’s remarks.
“The members of Ben & Jerry’s social mission board do not speak for anyone other than themselves,” a Unilever spokesperson told the Journal on Thursday.
“We call for peace in the region and for relief for all those whose lives have been impacted.”
The response is the latest indication of a longstanding and fraught dynamic between the Vermont-based brand and its London-based owner.
Last month, Unilever said it had no intention of selling Ben & Jerry’s — despite a bid by the founders of the popular ice cream brand to buy back the company.
Unilever also recently threatened to cut its $5 million annual funding to the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation unless it agrees to a fast-tracked audit of its donations, escalating tensions over the brand’s progressive activism.
In March, Ben & Jerry’s accused its corporate owner of ousting the ice cream maker’s chief executive over the brand’s anti-Trump political activism.
When Unilever acquired Ben & Jerry’s in 2000, the deal included a unique arrangement: the company’s independent board retained authority over the brand’s social mission and marketing.
That unusual structure has led to numerous public clashes in recent years, particularly over the Israel-Palestinian dispute.
In legal filings, Unilever has criticized the board’s “decision to continue to embroil B&J’s and Unilever in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one of the most divisive and polarizing topics of our time.”
Ben & Jerry’s co-founder Ben Cohen made headlines earlier this month when he and other activists disrupted a Senate health committee hearing.
As he was removed by security, Cohen shouted: “Congress is paying to bomb poor kids in Gaza and paying for it by kicking poor kids off Medicaid in the US.”
The latest statement comes amid renewed scrutiny of Unilever’s ice cream division.
The company recently announced plans to spin off its ice cream business entirely in order to streamline operations and focusing on higher-growth areas.
Analysts have noted that Ben & Jerry’s activism — and the backlash it frequently generates — has added complications for the broader Unilever brand.
Tensions between the two entities reached a boiling point in 2021 when Ben & Jerry’s announced it would stop selling its products in Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem — citing inconsistency with its values.
That decision prompted legal and financial consequences for Unilever, which was accused of violating anti-boycott laws in several jurisdictions.
The backlash led to lawsuits, sanctions and the withdrawal of hundreds of millions of dollars in Unilever stock, according to a March legal filing by the company.
In response, Unilever sold its Ben & Jerry’s business in Israel to a local distributor — an effort to ensure continued sales across Israel and the West Bank.
Ben & Jerry’s then sued its parent company, alleging that the sale breached the terms of the acquisition agreement and undermined the board’s control over social impact decisions.
The Post has sought comment from Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever.
Credit: Source link
