In a bold move that pits social activism against corporate power, Ben & Jerry’s is suing its parent company, Unilever, to stop the sale of its Israeli business—a decision the ice cream maker claims tramples its founding values. The legal battle, led by Ben & Jerry’s CEO Matthew McCarthy, has reignited debates about whether socially driven brands can stay true to their missions under corporate ownership.
A Scoop of Background
Ben & Jerry’s has long been synonymous with progressive causes, championing everything from climate justice to racial equity. Since its acquisition by Unilever in 2000, the Vermont-based company has operated with unusual autonomy, allowing it to maintain its activist DNA. But cracks began showing in 2021 when Ben & Jerry’s announced it would stop selling ice cream in Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories, calling the move aligned with its “values of peace and justice.” Unilever, however, swiftly overruled the decision, sparking tensions that have now boiled over into a courtroom.
The Meltdown Over Israel
The latest clash centers on Unilever’s attempt to sell Ben & Jerry’s Israeli operations to local licensee Avi Zinger, whose company manufactures and distributes the ice cream in the region. According to Ben & Jerry’s, the sale would allow products to continue being sold in contested territories, violating their ethical stance. McCarthy argues the deal undermines a clause in their Unilever agreement that protects the brand’s social integrity.
“This isn’t just about ice cream—it’s about accountability,” McCarthy stated. “We’ve always stood for more than profits, and we refuse to let that be frozen out.”
Unilever, meanwhile, insists the sale is necessary to comply with Israeli laws and maintain business operations. The conglomerate claims Ben & Jerry’s independent board overstepped by attempting to block the deal, emphasizing its legal right as
