Ben Cohen has raised fresh concerns about whether Ben & Jerry’s independent board still has the freedom it was promised. His remarks revive a long-running debate about how mission-driven brands operate inside global corporations, and why governance guardrails matter for workers, suppliers, and customers.
The co-founder’s comments touch on the core of Ben & Jerry’s identity. The Vermont ice cream maker built its reputation on progressive values, even after its 2000 sale to Unilever. The independence of its board was designed to protect that mission. Cohen says that independence may be at risk.
Concerns for the independence of Ben & Jerry’s board.
An unusual structure built to protect a mission
When Unilever bought Ben & Jerry’s in 2000 for roughly $326 million, the deal included a rare governance feature. The company kept a separate board responsible for the brand’s social mission and integrity, while Unilever oversaw financial performance and operations.
This structure was meant to preserve the company’s activism. It allowed the brand to continue campaigns on climate, criminal justice, and fair trade. It also gave the board latitude to set standards for marketing and sourcing, even if those choices carried costs.
Flashpoints that tested independence
The arrangement has faced stress. In 2021, the brand said it would stop selling products in Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. The decision triggered political pressure and legal challenges. It also exposed a fault line between the brand’s social mission and the parent’s risk appetite.
In 2022, legal disputes emerged over licensing in Israel. The independent board sought to maintain control over how the brand’s values are applied. Unilever emphasized its right to manage business continuity and compliance. The parties later announced a resolution, but questions about the board’s reach remained.
Cohen’s current worries arrive in that context. The tension is familiar: how far can a mission board go when reputational, legal, or financial pressures rise?
What stakeholders say matters
Employees and franchisees often look to the board for clarity on values. Suppliers rely on long-term commitments to fair trade and sustainable inputs. Customers expect consistency between the brand’s messages and its actions.
Corporate governance researchers point to transparency and defined boundaries as key. They argue that social-mission boards need explicit authority, clear dispute resolution, and regular public reporting to keep trust intact.
- Define decision rights for social-impact policies and marketing.
- Set procedures for resolving conflicts with parent-company operations.
- Publish an annual governance letter detailing decisions and rationale.
The business case and the risks
Ben & Jerry’s has long linked its activism to brand strength. Supporters say principled stances build loyalty and attract talent. Critics warn that geopolitical advocacy can trigger boycotts, lawsuits, and regulatory scrutiny.
For Unilever, these trade-offs affect risk management and investor relations. Shareholders weigh reputational capital against potential costs. The balance depends on clear governance, disciplined communications, and consistent application of stated values.
What could come next
Cohen’s remarks may prompt calls for a refreshed charter that reaffirms the board’s scope. That could include clearer language on product placement, licensing decisions, and public policy statements tied to the brand’s mission.
Governance experts suggest a periodic third-party audit of the board’s independence. They also recommend a shared protocol for crisis decisions, so both the parent and the brand act quickly and coherently during controversies.
If these steps are taken, the company could reduce future conflicts and restore confidence among stakeholders who care about both values and performance.
Cohen’s warning is simple, but its implications are wide. The brand’s identity—and its promise to consumers—hangs on whether the independent board can act with real authority. Watch for updated governance documents, new disclosures, or joint statements from the board and Unilever in the months ahead. Those signals will tell whether the structure still works as designed.
