“If You Love Us, Let Us Go”: Ben Cohen Urges Unilever to Free Ben & Jerry’s as Ice Cream Breakup Looms

Edited by: TJVNews.com

As Unilever prepares to spin off its global ice cream business, a longtime conflict that has simmered between the consumer goods giant and one of its most iconic subsidiaries is reaching a dramatic climax. Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s, has issued a passionate plea to the company that acquired his brand a quarter-century ago: “If you love us, let us go.”

According to a report that appeared on Wednesday in The Wall Street Journal, Cohen is working behind the scenes to rally a coalition of mission-aligned investors who would purchase Ben & Jerry’s and restore the ice cream brand to full independence. His effort comes amid Unilever’s broader plans to divest from its ice cream portfolio—either through a public offering or through piecemeal asset sales.

No matter how the financial strategy unfolds, the potential outcome could mark the end of one of the most turbulent and complex relationships in the annals of corporate mergers—a clash of cultures, missions, and values that has unfolded over decades, culminating in boardroom battles, lawsuits, and geopolitical controversy.

Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield launched Ben & Jerry’s in 1978 with a single scoop shop in Burlington, Vermont. As The Wall Street Journal reported, the duo were guided by a progressive ethos that blended social justice advocacy with entrepreneurial spirit, the WSJ report said. When multinational conglomerates began circling in the late 1990s, Cohen said he was deeply reluctant to sell.

But Unilever made an unusual offer: it would acquire the company while allowing Ben & Jerry’s to maintain a wholly independent board that controlled the brand’s social mission and marketing direction. In essence, the acquisition was structured to safeguard the brand’s conscience.

That 2000 agreement, as The WSJ report highlighted, became a legal fortress—one that prohibits Unilever from firing Ben & Jerry’s independent board, even in the event of a corporate sale or restructuring.

“We spent a tremendous amount of time and energy working on that document and negotiating it,” Cohen told The Wall Street Journal. “If not for that agreement, Ben & Jerry’s would have died by now, and it would be just another ice cream brand.”

Unilever, which acquired Ben & Jerry’s in 2000 under a one-of-a-kind agreement to preserve the company’s social mission, is now arguing that the brand has veered too far into divisive political territory. In statements reported by The Wall Street Journal, the consumer goods giant said it had worked cooperatively with Ben & Jerry’s independent board for more than two decades, but that recent actions by the board have centered around “one-sided, highly controversial, and polarizing topics” that jeopardize not only the brand’s reputation but the safety and well-being of Unilever’s global employees.

The tension between the two entities has intensified in recent years, especially as Ben & Jerry’s has increasingly spoken out on hot-button issues such as racial justice, climate policy, U.S. immigration, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The report in The Wall Street Journal said that while many companies have cautiously dipped a toe into “brand activism,” Ben & Jerry’s has remained unapologetically loud. And for that, Unilever appears to be increasingly uncomfortable

Despite the safeguards, tension between Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever escalated dramatically in 2021 following a politically explosive decision by the brand’s independent board. Ben & Jerry’s announced it would stop selling its products in Israeli settlements in the Judea and Samaria region and East Jerusalem, arguing that doing so violated its ethical guidelines.

Unilever, however, faced immediate blowback. As The Wall Street Journal report detailed, U.S. states determined that Unilever had breached anti-BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) laws, triggering lawsuits, accusations of antisemitism, and the divestment of hundreds of millions of dollars in stock. The Wall Street Journal reported that the company scrambled to contain the fallout by selling Ben & Jerry’s Israeli business to a local distributor—effectively circumventing the board’s decision and allowing the product to remain on shelves in both Israel and the West Bank.

Ben & Jerry’s then sued its own parent company, alleging a violation of the 2000 acquisition agreement and arguing that Unilever had overstepped its authority by undercutting the brand’s right to govern its values-driven policies, as per The Wall Street Journal report.

Now, as Unilever prepares to cast off its entire ice cream division—which includes household names such as Magnum and Cornetto—the possibility of Ben & Jerry’s returning to its independent roots seems more real than ever.

“If Unilever is truly ready to part ways with its ice cream business, then there is no reason to prevent Ben & Jerry’s from charting its own course,” Cohen implied, as was reported in The Wall Street Journal. “They loved us for who we were in 2000. Now we’ve grown apart. It’s time.”

Yet, even this potential breakup is mired in legal complexity. Because of the original acquisition terms, Ben & Jerry’s independent board retains significant authority over any divestment process, which could deter some buyers or complicate a public offering. In turn, this has fueled further friction inside Unilever’s executive ranks, especially following the ouster of Ben & Jerry’s former CEO—an action that The WSJ suggests was likely rooted in Unilever’s frustration over the brand’s unrelenting activism.

What began as a novel corporate arrangement—a brand-within-a-brand allowed to maintain a conscience—has turned into an enduring struggle over identity and control. The report in The Wall Street Journal indicated that for Cohen, now 74, the urgency of the moment is about legacy. “We’re not just an ice cream company,” he has long maintained. “We’re a company with a mission.”

According to The Wall Street Journal report, this saga is no longer just about a brand and its board—it’s about whether a multinational conglomerate can coexist with a business built on moral convictions.

In a March court filing obtained by The Wall Street Journal, Ben & Jerry’s independent board accused Unilever of violating the acquisition terms by removing the brand’s CEO, David Stever, without board approval. The board maintained that the original acquisition agreement clearly gave it authority over matters tied to leadership, mission, and marketing.

Stever’s ouster triggered backlash not only from the board but also from within the company itself. Co-founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield—who no longer sit on the board but remain deeply involved in the company’s ethos—publicly criticized the move and joined employees in a walkout to protest the decision. Cohen, who is still an employee, stood shoulder to shoulder with dozens of Ben & Jerry’s workers in what he described as a defense of the brand’s integrity.

“This company has a soul,” Cohen said, as quoted by The Wall Street Journal. “Business is the most powerful force in our society, and for that, it has responsibility to the society.”

The legal battle between Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever also involves another explosive flashpoint: Donald Trump. In its lawsuit, the board alleges that it had planned to release a statement on the day of the former president’s inauguration, outlining progressive policies it believed were under threat, such as the federal minimum wage and environmental regulations.

According to the information provided in The Wall Street Journal report, Unilever’s president of ice cream personally blocked the statement from being released. The board argues that this was a violation not just of the acquisition agreement, but of the very spirit that defines Ben & Jerry’s.

“Despite four decades of progressive social activism—and years of challenging the Trump administration’s policies, criticizing Trump was now too taboo for the brand synonymous with ‘Peace, Love, and Ice Cream,’” the lawsuit stated.

Shahmeer Halepota, the board’s attorney, told The Wall Street Journal that Unilever should not be surprised by the brand’s outspokenness. “They knew what they were buying in 2000,” Halepota said. “It would be the equivalent of buying SeaWorld and complaining it’s too wet.”

Unilever recently revealed that the soon-to-be-spun-off ice cream business will not be named after Ben & Jerry’s, but rather after Magnum, another major player in its frozen dessert empire. As The Wall Street Journal reported, Unilever’s ice cream portfolio generated €8.3 billion (approximately $9 billion) in revenue last year, with Ben & Jerry’s representing a significant—if complicated—part of that equation.

Despite the ongoing legal and ideological war, Unilever insisted that Ben & Jerry’s is not for sale as a standalone brand. Nonetheless, Ben Cohen is pursuing what The Wall Street Journal report characterized as a “long-shot” attempt to line up like-minded investors who could potentially buy the brand outright and restore its independence.

In his view, this is not just about corporate strategy—it’s about rescuing the soul of a company that was never supposed to be just another name in the freezer aisle.

Since its founding in 1978, Ben & Jerry’s has tried to prove that capitalism and conscience are not mutually exclusive. Its founders have championed a model of business rooted in progressive values, environmental stewardship, and fearless activism, The Wall Street Journal report explained. That vision was preserved—at least on paper—by the 2000 acquisition agreement with Unilever, which enshrined the board’s independence.

Now, a quarter-century later, the limits of that agreement are being tested in real time. The outcome of the ongoing lawsuits, board disputes, and public fallout could have ramifications far beyond the ice cream industry. It may well define the future of corporate activism itself.

And in the words of Ben Cohen—again via The Wall Street Journal—that future requires more than a legal contract. It demands moral clarity.

“If you love us,” he said, “let us go.”