Nothing is ever the same once something you love starts to lose its essence. We’re not talking about feelings now, but about our favourite ice creams, Ben & Jerry’s, a company that was more than just an ice cream shop. It had a sense of justice, social commitment, and community belonging. Every spoonful of its ice cream was worth it precisely because of that, but lately, something has broken. And unfortunately, it’s not just about this company.
The world is becoming increasingly aggressive and individualistic, and where respect, logic, and common sense once reigned, there are now only remnants and gaps being filled with hate. What once tasted like revolution and chocolate now leaves only a bitter aftertaste.
What happened?
Alarms have gone off in the community, as CEO Dave Stever has been fired for openly defending the identity of a company that had been well-defined for over 40 years.
Why was Stever fired?
Unilever, the parent company of this ice cream brand since the 2000s, revealed that it fired Stever without even consulting the board that oversees the brand. The one and only, and paradoxical, reason: his commitment to the company’s social mission.
Apparently, Unilever had repeatedly criticized Stever for “continually engaging” in Ben & Jerry’s social initiatives, such as celebrating Black History Month.
The radicalization of society has unfortunately reached every level, and Stever has faced significant censorship for expressing support for Palestine or even celebrating the release of Mahmoud Khalil, a legal resident and activist for Palestine at Columbia University. Stever has even reported being told not to criticize Donald Trump publicly.
Activism that makes people uncomfortable
Since Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield founded the company, it hasn’t been just a brand of ice cream, it’s been a political platform that has aimed to fight against climate change and for social and racial justice, among many other causes pursued over the years. This spirit was somewhat diminished when Unilever acquired the company in the 2000s, but one condition remained very clear: that social mission had to be protected.
Now, however, it seems that Unilever wants to change course and dismantle the social activism that has been present for so many years and which many consider to be the soul of the brand.
What’s behind this clash?
This isn’t an isolated incident. In the current context, many companies are rethinking their social policies under pressure from conservative sectors and growing political radicalization. Since 2021, Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever have had disagreements, especially after the brand’s decision to halt sales in Israeli-occupied territories, a stance that generated major controversy but was also proudly applauded by many others.
Since then, tensions have risen. This dismissal seems to be the last straw and has reignited the debate over how much real power brands have to defend their values within large corporate conglomerates.
Setting a (bad) precedent?
This case doesn’t only affect Ben & Jerry’s, it could have significant implications for other brands that have built their image around activism and social impact. Can they continue doing so in an environment increasingly controlled by global parent companies that prioritize neutrality? It also highlights the issue of freedom of speech within the corporate world. If a CEO can be fired for defending social causes that are part of the brand’s DNA, then where does that leave corporations’ real commitment to their values?
What’s clear from all this is that the landscape is getting very ugly, and in a world where social rights are under threat, collective struggle, activism, and consistency must be our priority.
“Commit yourself to the noble struggle for human rights. You will make a better person of yourself, a greater nation of your country, and a better world to live in.” — Martin Luther King Jr., civil rights activist.