Ben & Jerry's Founders Condemn Unilever's Actions

Shawn

3 min read

Post on Sep 11, 2025

4.3

Share

Ben & Jerry's Founders Condemn Unilever's Actions in Israel

Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, the founders of the iconic ice cream brand Ben & Jerry's, have publicly condemned Unilever's decision to allow the sale of their ice cream in Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. This strongly worded denouncement reignites a long-standing debate surrounding the company's ethical stance and its relationship with its parent company, the multinational consumer goods giant Unilever.

The controversy stems from a 2021 decision by Ben & Jerry's to cease sales in the Israeli-occupied territories, a move lauded by many human rights activists as a stand against the occupation. However, this decision was ultimately overruled by Unilever, who retained the rights to distribute the ice cream in these areas through a licensee. This action has prompted outrage from Cohen and Greenfield, who maintain their opposition to the sale of Ben & Jerry's in settlements.

<h3>A Deepening Divide: Founders vs. Unilever</h3>

Cohen and Greenfield, known for their outspoken activism, released a statement expressing their deep disappointment and anger at Unilever’s actions. They argued that the move directly contradicts the brand's core values and its long-standing commitment to social justice. The statement highlighted the ethical concerns surrounding the occupation and the impact on Palestinians living under Israeli control. They emphasized that this isn't merely a business decision; it's a moral one.

"We are deeply troubled by Unilever's decision to allow the sale of Ben & Jerry's ice cream in Israeli settlements," Cohen stated in a press release. "This action undermines our commitment to human rights and our belief in a just and equitable peace in the region."

This public condemnation marks a significant escalation in the ongoing conflict between the founders and Unilever. While Unilever has defended its decision on commercial grounds, arguing it's necessary to maintain a presence in the region, the founders have firmly rejected this justification. The situation raises important questions about corporate social responsibility and the power dynamics between parent companies and the brands they acquire.

<h3>The Ongoing Debate: Human Rights vs. Business Interests</h3>

The debate surrounding Ben & Jerry's and its operations in Israel is complex and multifaceted. It highlights the inherent tensions between upholding ethical principles and maximizing profits in a globalized marketplace. Supporters of the founders' stance point to the human rights abuses associated with the Israeli occupation, emphasizing the importance of corporate accountability in addressing these issues. Conversely, those defending Unilever's decision often cite the importance of maintaining a commercial presence in the region and avoiding potential legal and financial repercussions.

This conflict underscores the growing pressure on multinational corporations to engage in ethical business practices and consider the social and environmental impact of their decisions. The actions of Unilever and the vocal opposition from Ben & Jerry's founders have become a case study in the complexities of corporate social responsibility in a politically charged environment.

<h3>What's Next for Ben & Jerry's?</h3>

The future of Ben & Jerry's and its relationship with Unilever remains uncertain. The founders' public condemnation adds another layer of complexity to an already tense situation. The long-term impact on the brand's image and its sales remains to be seen. This situation will undoubtedly continue to be a topic of discussion amongst consumers, activists, and investors alike, highlighting the ongoing struggle to balance business interests with ethical considerations.

This ongoing saga prompts a crucial question for consumers: How important are a company's ethical stances when making purchasing decisions? Share your thoughts in the comments below.