Ask Onix
Ben & Jerry's ex-chair alleges smear campaign threats
Anuradha Mittal, former chair of Ben & Jerry's independent board, has accused Magnum Ice Cream Company of threatening to publish "defamatory statements" if she did not resign from her role. The dispute centers on the board's autonomy and the brand's social mission.
Background of the conflict
Ben & Jerry's, known for its activism and pun-filled flavor names, was sold to Unilever in 2000 under terms that preserved its independent board and social mission. Tensions escalated in recent years, including a 2021 decision to halt sales in Israeli-occupied territories, which led Unilever to sell the brand's Israeli operations to a local licensee.
Earlier this month, Unilever spun off its ice cream division into Magnum, which now oversees Ben & Jerry's. The transition has intensified disputes over the brand's independence and governance.
Magnum's investigation and board changes
Magnum stated Mittal "no longer met the criteria" to serve on the board following an external investigation. The company announced new board policies, including a nine-year term limit, which will require Mittal and two other members to step down.
An audit of the Ben & Jerry's Foundation also revealed "material deficiencies" in financial controls, governance, and compliance, including conflicts of interest.
Mittal's response and allegations
Mittal, founder of the Oakland Institute, a human rights think tank, told the BBC that Magnum executives threatened to include defamatory statements about her in a prospectus if she refused to resign. She also claimed she was offered a "prominent role" in a Unilever-funded nonprofit as an incentive to comply-an offer she called "inappropriate" and declined.
"For several years, we have resisted their overreach, including efforts to muzzle us from speaking out for human rights and peace."
Anuradha Mittal, former Ben & Jerry's board chair
Founders weigh in
Ben & Jerry's co-founder Jerry Greenfield left the company in September, citing concerns that its social mission was being undermined. Co-founder Ben Cohen has also criticized Magnum, stating it was "not fit" to own the brand.
Magnum's stance
A Magnum spokesperson said the changes were intended to "strengthen corporate governance" and "preserve the brand's historical social mission."
"We remain unequivocally committed to Ben & Jerry's three-part mission-product, economic, and social-and its progressive, non-partisan values."
Magnum Ice Cream Company spokesperson
The company emphasized that Ben & Jerry's continues to advocate for social justice, as reflected in its social media presence.
What's next
The dispute highlights broader tensions between corporate ownership and activist brands. Magnum's governance reforms and Mittal's removal signal a shift in how Ben & Jerry's will balance its social mission with its new parent company's priorities.
