Ben and Jerry's co-founder quits, accusing Unilever of silencing social mission
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
25 years later, jerry thinks the company has lost its independence? the independence was lost before the ink dried on the sales agreement. unilever never cared about their social mission, period. they've been "dealing" with it since the acquisition.
why not take the sale proceeds and pursue other social missions? btw, phish food is my favorite flavor! <3
I'm not against selling out, but feigned surprise seems a bit out of place.
I would love to see the legal catfight as a new brand called GFBJ (Genocide-Free Ben and Jerry's) opens for sale across a series of supermarkets coinciding with a boycott of Unilever products.
One can dream.
There is a social mission, and then there is outright political bias. Having a social mission could be climate change, responsible sourcing, charity, etc. But the headline image is a Ben & Jerry's tub with a picture of a political candidate on it.
> Greenfield’s resignation is the latest development in a bitter dispute since Unilever backtracked on an agreement allowing Ben & Jerry’s to not sell ice-cream in occupied Palestinian territories, which had been heavily criticised in Israel.
> Last year, Ben & Jerry’s launched a legal action against Unilever, accusing it of threatening to dismantle the board and sue directors over their public statements in support of Palestinians in Gaza.
At some point you have to ask what ice cream has got to do with Israel and Gaza, no matter where you stand on the issue.
Given the political winds, I think Unilever are acting to protect the brand and their investment, and the co-founders become somewhat increasingly more political.