Three weeks ago, it was reported Ben & Jerry’s had filed a case in a New York court accusing parent company Unilever of ousting the ice-cream maker’s CEO, Dave Stever, in an attempt to silence its so-called ‘social mission’.
Ben & Jerry’s alleged the move was part of efforts by Unilever to silence its activism. It also said the decision to oust Stever was made without any consultation, contrary to the merger agreement between the two companies.
As the two sides continue to wrangle, the episode speaks to a wider theme in corporate positioning and communications in the context of the Trump presidency in the US, namely internal efforts to neuter or play down values that put businesses in the crosshairs of the administration’s conservatism and the threat of investigation by an activist Department of Justice.
‘Obeying in advance’ is a term gaining use in the current US political climate as critics note that individuals and companies, faced with a growing state authoritarianism, often fall prey to a tendency to moderate their statements and philosophies, as well as stated values to avoid criticism or pre-empt any action against them. Political scientists tend to advocate that individuals, businesses and non-governmental organisations in general should guard against obeying in advance given the accelerating effect this can have in terms of removing barriers to authoritarian impulses.
At present, however, examples are plentiful of organisations in the US, from major FMCG firms to universities, taking pre-emptive actions to get in line with Trumpian agendas. For example, major companies have been dropping DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) commitments in the face of an administration against any such policies or anything that could be remotely construed as such.
The acrimonious state of affairs between the Ben & Jerry’s board and Unilever is interesting within this context. For a start, Unilever is not a US firm. Ben & Jerry’s is today a global brand, with well-known liberal-progressive values, stemming from its founders. They are a key facet of its brand identity and history. However, a tide of apoliticism or less-liberal realignment has swept across companies active in the US market, opening up potential fissures between parents and more activist subsidiaries, as well as the considerable non-MAGA element of the US consumer base.
In February, Ben & Jerry’s accused Unilever of pressuring it to stop public criticism of President Trump. This followed a lawsuit launched against its parent in November 2024 over attempts to block Ben & Jerry’s from public support of Palestinian refugees in Gaza. Ben & Jerry’s independent board was originally created to protect the brand’s social/political mission when Unilever purchased the business in 2000. That board is now accusing Unilever of attempting to eliminate the social mission; Unilever themselves have fired back, accusing the board of advocating “one-sided, highly controversial, and polarising topics that put Unilever, Ben &Jerry’s, and their employees at risk”.
Unilever has a business agenda associated with its plan to list its ice cream division, which includes Ben & Jerry’s alongside brands such as Walls, Magnum and Breyers. Although a non-American listing, it could be argued there is pressure coming from the investment community to become apolitical alongside a drive to cut costs that has seen Unilever scale back its ESG commitments, drawing criticism from environmentalists and social commentators. Such moves, alongside the current ructions with Ben & Jerry’s, feed into a larger narrative of multinationals, particularly those with US exposure, trying to navigate a thornier political environment by suppressing contentious elements.
Indeed, questions are starting to be raised over whether the appetite for ESG policies and very public commitments to corporate responsibilities over the last decade was more for show than an actual reflection of many companies’ intrinsic values.
The rise of Trump 2.0 is creating an off-ramp for businesses to cut costs while moving to a more ideologically neutral or ambiguous position. The challenge for Unilever and others will be the degree to which that influences consumer perceptions, given the divisiveness of Trump, both in the US and globally.
While ESG factors fall short of influencing consumer choice to the degree of attributes like quality and price (low price is an essential purchase driver for 40% of global consumers, sustainability/ethicality 28%, for example, according to a GlobalData survey in the last quarter of 2024), liberal US consumers and western Europeans for example, may be increasingly attentive to, and negatively influenced by brands’ approaches to the administration’s social vision.
