Ben and Jerry’s has long traded on the idea that it is not just another ice cream company.
Since its founding in Vermont, the brand has made a point of tying its flavours to outspoken social values, positioning itself as a business with a conscience rather than a purely commercial operation.
That reputation has helped it stand apart in a crowded freezer aisle, but it has also created friction whenever corporate ownership and activism have collided.
Those tensions have been simmering for years. Ben and Jerry’s was acquired by Unilever in 2000 under an unusual structure that allowed the ice cream maker to retain an independent board tasked with protecting its social mission.
Advert
That arrangement has since been tested repeatedly, particularly after the company announced in 2021 that it would stop selling its products in Israeli-occupied West Bank settlements, a move that triggered political backlash and legal disputes.
The situation became more complicated late last year, when Unilever spun off its ice cream division into a new business called The Magnum Ice Cream Company, handing control of Ben and Jerry’s to a new corporate parent while retaining a minority stake.
Now, as a dramatic turn, Magnum has accused former Ben and Jerry’s board chair Anuradha Mittal of ‘serious misconduct’, claiming her actions rendered her ineligible to continue serving on the board.
The accusation was made in a filing in a US District Court case in New York, as part of ongoing litigation between the ice cream brand and its parent company.
According to the filing, an Ernst and Young audit of the Ben and Jerry’s Foundation, a separate US non-profit funded by the brand, raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest.
Magnum said the foundation had regularly made grants to organisations where trustees, including Mittal, held senior positions and received compensation or other benefits.
Mittal was removed from her role in mid-December, and the fallout has been swift.
Ben and Jerry’s once eight-member independent board has now been reduced to just two directors.
Two long-serving members departed after Magnum introduced nine-year term limits, while three remaining independent directors were removed on 1 January after refusing to certify compliance with Magnum’s code of business integrity and undertake compliance training.
The only remaining board members are Ben and Jerry’s chief executive and a Unilever appointee.
Mittal has strongly rejected the allegations and accused Magnum of attempting to undermine the board’s authority.
Reported by Reuters, Magnum said in a statement: “Magnum’s midnight purge of independent directors who provide oversight authority and holding hostage charitable funds— all while they continue to conceal the audit report and scope of work — speak for themselves.”
Magnum has described the protracted legal battle as ‘regrettable’ and insists it remains committed to the brand. The company said: “We look forward to the development of a refreshed Board with a majority of Independent Directors, led by an Independent Director.”
The Ben and Jerry’s Foundation has also been caught in the crossfire, saying it has ‘become collateral damage’ in the dispute.
Ben Williams