Ben & Jerrys claims Unilever fired the CEO for activism: NPR

Ben & Jerry’s accused parent company Unilever of expelling CEOs for retaliating their social media activities. This is the latest escalation in the long-term battle with ice cream maker’s independence.

Five directors of the Vermont-based company and its independent committee originally sued Unilever and its subsidiary Conopco in federal court in November 2024, alleging that the company silenced attempts to show support for Palestinian refugees publicly.

Ben & Jerry said these actions violated the 2000 merger agreement, creating an independent committee that gave them “primary responsibility for the priorities of the social mission and the intrinsic integrity of the brand.” The company has a well-documented history of outspoken advocacy, supporting causes from racial and climate justice to campaign reform through what it calls the “progressive, nonpartisan social mission.”

In an amended complaint filed Tuesday in the Southern District of New York, Ben & Jerry’s Unilever continues to censor social media posts about black history months and freedom of speech, launching a “professional retaliation campaign,” leading to a rapid removal of CEOs.

“In opposition to their duties under Section 6.14, Unilever repeatedly threatened Ben & Jerry staff, including CEO David Stever, if they did not follow Unilever’s efforts to silence their social mission.” “This month… Unilever continues their threat.”

An Unilever executive at Ben & Jerry said he announced the removal of Stever on March 3, not following the procedures outlined in the merger agreement, for reasons unrelated to his work performance.

A spokesman for Unilever told NPR in a statement, “the decision to appoint, compensate and remove Ben & Jerry’s CEO will be made by Unilever after good faith consultation and discussion with the Independent Committee of B&J.”

“Unfortunately, despite repeated attempts to engage with the board and follow the correct process, we are disappointed that the confidentiality of our employees’ career conversations has been made public,” the company added. “We hope that the B&J Independent Committee will be involved in accordance with the original agreed process.”

Ben & Jerry says they ignored the provisions of the merger agreement, which would have been consulted by the board with the advisory committee before Unilever made a decision on removing the CEO.

“Unilever attempted to enforce the decision by announcing the decision before the committee was appointed and unilaterally determined an artificial and rushing deadline on the independent committee,” he wrote.

Stever was appointed CEO in May 2023, more than 30 years after joining the company as a tour guide. Ben and Jerry say they are “better than Unilever’s ice cream portfolio” under his tenure, and have been ranked for the second year in a row on the Brand 500 Authenticity Index.

Still, the lawsuit alleges that by allowing specific social media posts, it disciplined stever for “repetitively acquiescing the request of the Independent Social Mission Committee” in its January 2025 performance review.

“In terms of information and beliefs, Unilever’s motivation to remove Mr. Stever is his commitment to Ben & Jerry’s social mission and the integrity of the brand, not a genuine concern about his performance history, but a willingness to work with an independent board in good faith,” the complaint reads.

In response, Unilever filed a motion dismissing Ben and Jerry’s complaints. The claims say there is no merit as independent board members have no right to file a lawsuit on behalf of the company and did not identify any damages arising from Unilever’s alleged actions.

It states that the current conflict is a “direct result” of the board’s decision to view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without considering the negative impact on both companies.

“Unilever continues to support B&J and its social advocacy efforts,” he wrote in the response. “As time passed, B&J’s social mission has shifted, but it came to my mind as B&J has been trying to defend the one-sided, highly controversial, polarized topics that have put Unilever, B&J and its employees at risk in recent years.”

When did the feud begin?

The past few years have been rocky roads for Ben & Jerry and Unilever.

In 2021, Ben & Jerry announced that they would cease selling ice cream on Israel’s Palestinian territory, calling the practice “contradicts our values.”

The decision has prompted multiple US and Israeli lawsuits, and charges of anti-Semitism in Unilever’s shares and sales of “hundreds of millions of dollars” were said in a court application Wednesday.

In a legal filing this week, Unilever said it continues to suffer the outcome of Ben & Jerry’s “today” decision, remaining on the anti-boycott list in at least nine states and under fatwa in Indonesia.

In 2022, Unilever sold its intellectual property rights to Israeli distributors, then returned the products (only Hebrew and Arabic labeling) to shelves in the West Bank.

Ben & Jerry then sued Unilever, accusing them of bypassing the board of directors in a business decision. The 2022 lawsuit ended with a settlement that lacked details until the November 2024 lawsuit was filed.

According to the lawsuit, the 2022 settlement agreement requires Unilever to “require that the major committees of (R) Ben & Jerry’s Independent Committee recognize and acknowledge Ben & Jerry’s primary responsibility for the social mission and the integrity of the brand, and “ensure that it is protected and promoted in good faith with the Independent Committee.”

And cites “various threats, retaliation, censorship,” and accusing Unilever of not doing so in years.

What social media post in question?

Ben & Jerry alleges Unilever silenced social media activities by directly violating the settlement on multiple occasions.

Unilever says it blocked four posts about the Israel-Hamas War “in favour of peace and human rights” and continued its humanitarian crisis in Gaza for six months.

The first example was a post in December 2023 calling for peace and a permanent ceasefire.

“Unilever dismantled its independent board and threatened to sue board members individually if Ben and Jerry issued statements in support of “peace” and “ceasefire,” under the decades-long motto of “peace, love, ice cream,” the lawsuit states.

Unilever says that in May 2024, Ben & Jerry’s social media manager stopped posting in support of Palestinian refugees. The lawsuit says Unilever officials have issued a statement because they were consistent with an Iranian missile attack on Israel.

“When the issue escalated to me, I raised concern about the ongoing perception of anti-Semitism, a permanent issue,” Unilever ice cream president Peter Tell Kerve wrote to the board, according to the lawsuit. “My decision was that it wasn’t the right message at this point in light of the timing and nature of the post.”

Another example says it is a blocked post in favour of First Amendment rights for campus protesters in June 2024. In its legal submission, Unilever said it “supposed reasonable concerns about the need to condemn violence related to Jewish students’ protest and right to support.”

The Ben & Jerry lawsuit accuses Unilever of censoring posts on other topics, including inauguration dates that identified several social issues Ben & Jerry believes to challenge under President Trump, including minimum wage, universal healthcare, abortion and climate change. The company claims Unilever blocked it after weeks of work.

In recent weeks, Unilever has said it has prevented him from publishing a post commemorating Black History Month, endorsing another free utterance and petitioning for the release of Columbia University alumnus Mahmoud Khalil.

Unilever denied the board as a “mutumble,” writing in the move that the members were “least silent.”

Board members listed cases where board members issued statements on media outlets including Reuters and the Financial Times, as well as individual social media accounts, calling for a ceasefire and supporting campus protesters.

What happens next?

Ben & Jerry also accused Unilever of blocking donations to two organizations, the Jewish Voice for Peace and the American Council on Islamic Relations.

Unilever said it had “exercised its right to withhold consent to donate” after investigating the organization and discovering it had “made inflammatory comments” about the October 7 attack on Israel.

Ben & Jerry’s is asking the court to order Unilever to release funds to those organizations in addition to unspecified damages.

It also asks the court to order the authority of the Independent Commission “positively respect and acknowledge” and to comply with the rules of the merger agreement regarding the appointment and removal of CEOs.

They also hope that the court will ensure that “reorganization of Ben & Jerry or his parents will not eliminate or reduce the authority of the Board.” That reconstruction is not hypothetical.

Last May, Unilever announced that it would separate its ice cream units, including Ben & Jerry, into another business as part of a restructuring projected to be completed by the end of 2025.

Unilever told the board on March 5 that the restructuring was “immediate,” according to the Ben & Jerry lawsuit.