00:00Ben Cohen from Ben & Jerry's says its new parent company, Magnum, could destroy the brand.
00:05For context, Ben & Jerry's was sold to Unilever back in 2000, but they made a special deal.
00:09The brand could keep its own independent board to protect its social mission.
00:14Translation, they wanted to keep making activist ice cream without corporate bosses shutting it down.
00:19Fast forward to today, Unilever just spun off its ice cream division and now Magnum is the big boss.
00:25But Ben Cohen, one of the founders, says Magnum is trying to mess with that independence.
00:30Now this all started because Magnum said it found problems with how Ben & Jerry's was being run and how they control their money.
00:36So they questioned whether board chair Anirata Mattal should remain on board.
00:40Mattal fired back saying the audit was fake and just a way to take power away from the board.
00:45Now this led Cohen to make a statement saying Magnum has no standing to determine who the chair of the independent board should be.
00:51Adding, I would say that Magnum is not fit to own Ben & Jerry's.
00:55Now why does all of this matter? Well, Ben & Jerry's has always mixed ice cream with activism.
00:59Fans point to past choices like not selling in Israeli-occupied territories or wanting to release a flavor supporting Palestine as proof that the brand sticks to its values.
01:07But critics say those moves were too political, pushed away some customers, and caused big problems for the parent company.
01:13Magnum claims that it respects the mission, but Cohen warns that if it keeps interfering, fans will bail and Ben & Jerry's will lose what makes it special.
01:20His words, it'll just turn into another piece of frozen mush.
01:23So the big question, is Ben & Jerry's pushing activism too far or is Magnum interfering with the independence the brand was promised?
01:30Is this more about values or the business?
01:33Drop your thoughts in the comments and follow us here for more.
Be the first to comment