By: Jerome Brookshire

In a dramatic escalation of its increasingly strained relationship with Ben & Jerry’s, Unilever has cut off millions of dollars in funding to the ice cream company’s charitable foundation following what it describes as a persistent refusal by foundation trustees to comply with a corporate audit. As reported by Semafor and confirmed by The Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA), the move comes amid mounting scrutiny of the foundation’s grants to politically charged organizations, including those supporting the Palestinian cause.

The decision underscores a deeper rift that has long been festering between Unilever and its famously activist subsidiary. Tensions have reached a boiling point as Unilever prepares to spin off its ice cream business into a separate entity, one that will include Ben & Jerry’s alongside its other dessert brands. According to the JTA report that appeared on Tuesday, the funding suspension reflects both legal and reputational concerns surrounding the foundation’s opaque financial practices and controversial giving.

The crisis intensified when Peter ter Kulve, head of Unilever’s global ice cream division, informed Ben & Jerry’s executives that the company was halting its financial support after repeated efforts to obtain audit documents from the foundation were rebuffed. In an internal email obtained by Semafor, ter Kulve expressed frustration over the foundation’s lack of transparency, writing that the trustees “have continued to resist basic oversight.”

“This represents a marked departure from the norms of charitable organizations,” ter Kulve added, “for whom transparency is typically a bedrock operating principle.”

JTA reported that the audit was prompted in part by concerns over the foundation’s financial contributions to pro-Palestinian advocacy groups, including the Oakland Institute—a California-based nonprofit that has publicly criticized Israeli policy and has a trustee serving on the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation board.

The foundation, which distributed more than $5 million of Unilever’s funds in 2022 alone, supports hundreds of progressive and left-leaning organizations. But its opaque governance structure and reluctance to submit to standard auditing procedures have alarmed executives at Unilever, who fear exposure to political and legal risks in an increasingly volatile public landscape.

Founded in 1978 by Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield—two progressive Jews who sought to blend business with social activism—Ben & Jerry’s has long positioned itself as a corporate outlier: an ice cream brand with a conscience. The company’s stances have ranged from criminal justice reform to environmental sustainability and, more recently, sharp criticism of Israeli policies.

But, as the JTA report noted, the brand’s political advocacy—particularly its outspoken pro-Palestinian messaging—has placed it at odds with its corporate parent since Unilever acquired the company in 2000. The relationship grew particularly fraught in 2021, when Ben & Jerry’s announced it would cease sales in what it termed “Occupied Palestinian Territory,” a decision that drew backlash from pro-Israel organizations and several U.S. state governments.

The recent Gaza conflict has only sharpened these tensions. Just last month, the Ben & Jerry’s board accused Israel of committing “genocide” in Gaza, issuing a statement that JTA described as “politically incendiary and devoid of nuance.” Critics argue that such statements—while protected speech—carry serious reputational consequences when made by a globally recognized corporate brand.

The internal rupture grew more public this spring, when co-founder Ben Cohen made a bid to reacquire the company, reportedly seeking investors to support a buy-back ahead of Unilever’s planned spin-off. As the JTA reported, Unilever rejected Cohen’s effort, declaring that Ben & Jerry’s would not be sold as a standalone brand and reaffirming its commitment to retaining control of the company within its larger ice cream division.

The conflict spilled into federal court in March when Ben & Jerry’s sued Unilever over the ousting of its then-CEO Dave Stever. According to filings reviewed by JTA, the suit alleges that Stever was removed due to his support for the brand’s political activism—an accusation Unilever denies.

The legal case is still pending in the Southern District of New York, but observers say it reflects a broader reckoning over how far consumer brands can go in embracing political causes without triggering backlash from stakeholders, investors, and parent companies.

With the future of its funding uncertain, the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation may face a dramatic recalibration of its operations. It is unclear whether the trustees will submit to Unilever’s audit demands, but as the JTA report noted, the impasse is already having ripple effects across the progressive nonprofit ecosystem, where the foundation has been a significant source of support for grassroots organizations.

Advocates for transparency and accountability in charitable giving say the situation underscores the importance of aligning political values with fiduciary responsibility. “There’s a difference between activism and governance,” one nonprofit compliance expert told JTA. “If the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation wants to play a meaningful role in social change, it has to meet the basic standards of financial oversight.”

As Unilever prepares for its ice cream division’s spin-off, likely slated for early 2026, the company must walk a delicate line: distancing itself from the most controversial aspects of Ben & Jerry’s activism without alienating its loyal customer base. Whether the foundation’s funding will be restored—or whether it will sever its ties with Unilever entirely—remains to be seen.

For now, the story stands as a cautionary tale at the intersection of capitalism, activism, and corporate stewardship. As the JTA report observed, the ideological passion that once defined Ben & Jerry’s brand identity now poses complex legal, reputational, and operational questions for its corporate overseers—questions that are unlikely to disappear even with a new spin-off on the horizon.