Peace, Love & Profits

What use are brand value when they are in direct conflict with the brand owner’s profit objectives?

The recent news of the parting of the ways of the globally famous and disruptive Jerry Greenfield of ice cream icon ‘Ben & Jerry’s’ and brand owner FMCG giant Unilever is a classic story of never letting the brand values get in the way of a good profit.

To bring you up to speed - In 2021, Ben & Jerry’s announced it would stop selling its products in Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories, calling it inconsistent with the company’s values. Unilever overruled the decision in 2022 by selling the Israeli distribution rights to another firm, effectively ensuring the ice cream stayed on shelves. Greenfield and Cohen argued this undermined the independent social mission that was supposedly protected when Unilever bought the company in 2000, while Unilever insisted it had the final say as the corporate owner.  

So Jerry has decided to quit.

In a carefully worded press release, he said: “Standing up for the values of justice, equity, and our shared humanity has never been more important, and yet Ben & Jerry’s has been silenced, sidelined for fear of upsetting those in power and it’s happening at a time when our country’s current administration is attacking civil rights, voting rights of immigrants, women, and the LGBTQ community. It’s with a broken heart that I’ve decided I can no longer, in good conscience, and after 47 years, remain an employee of Ben & Jerry’s.”

The gilded cage

Obviously when the guarantee of “independence to pursue (their) values” clause was written into their contract, when Unilever purchased the company for $326 million 25 years ago – still a significant chunk of ice today, no-one ever anticipated international conflicts and world-ending commercialism as KPIs of brand values.

But was activism ever the number one factor in the success of the brand and how much did it help sales?

The original mission statement of Ben & Jerry’s was “to make the best possible ice cream in the nicest possible way” extending beyond taste to encompass ethical sourcing, fair trade, and environmental sustainability. Through a unique blend of intuition and outrage, cause-related product development has helped Ben & Jerry’s generate $1.1 billion in global sales last year.

They actively supported causes such as climate change awareness, marriage equality, and fair trade. Their campaigns were as bold and vibrant as their ice cream flavors:

• ‘Save Our Swirled’ raised awareness about climate change and the Paris climate talks.

• ‘Unfudge Our Future’  highlighted the need for climate action and renewable energy.

• ‘Apple-y Ever After’ supported marriage equality in the UK.

And Unilever gladly supported those initiatives because it helped sell more ice cream.

That’s it. Nothing else. It sold more product.

Values (for now)

We’ve seen this pattern before when Unilever walked back its DEI and ESG commitments last year. Because what helped sell products in the 20teens, became a millstone amid shareholder pressure and public debate about “woke capitalism” in 2024.

The company has also rolled back – or abandoned altogether, its pledge to spend €2 billion annually with diverse suppliers; its target for 5% of its workforce to be people with disabilities; its commitment to pay direct suppliers a living wage by 2030 and halving food waste and using only biodegradable ingredients.

Unilever CEO Hein Schumacher – rather dismissively - said that focus on ESG issues was “cyclical,” noting that the attention on climate is elevated when a company experiences a “huge drought for a number of months but everything else is going fine.”

“These days it’s about wars and rightly so, that’s at the forefront,” he added.

The CEO said he is focusing on commitments which will “stand up to scrutiny under increasingly granular regulatory requirements.”

The one brand in the entire portfolio of Unilever’s money-makers that dared to stand up to the board and its shareholders was Ben & Jerry’s. In January, the ice-cream company alleged that Unilever “unilaterally barred” a post referencing abortion, climate change and universal healthcare because it mentioned President Donald Trump.

But Israel’s continued pursuit of victory over Palestine and Unilever’s supplication to the pursuit of ever-increasing profit was a bridge too far for Jerry.

Late last year, Ben and Jerry filed a lawsuit against Unilever, accusing the parent company of censoring its public statements to support Palestinian refugees and resolutions to end military aid to Israel.

And now Jerry’s quit.

The choice

So I ask Unilever – if the company’s brand values and ethics are not tied to the environment, or diversity and equality but its focus is on wars and standing up to scrutiny of governments – what side are you on?

Pick a lane Mr Schumacher because the world is watching. Is your commercial savvy limited to simply taking the path of least resistance, or do you understand the link between profit and Unilever’s place in society as a guardian of strong morals?

It’s been nearly 100 years since Unilever was founded on the principles of “social purpose, product innovation, and improving everyday life for working people,” by William Hesketh Lever in 1929.

The company was established to provide affordable nutrition and variety for low-income families and invested in accessible healthcare for workers and community support initiatives. Its mission was to add “vitality to life”—meeting everyday needs for nutrition, hygiene, and personal care with brands that help people feel good and get more out of life.

To “do well by doing good.”

Maybe it’s time to revisit those honourable principles.

Maybe it’s time to make Jerry Greenfield CEO of Unilever.