Ben and Jerry’s Brand Could Be “Destroyed,” Warns Co Founder Amid Growing Rift with Parent Company

Ben Cohen, co founder of the iconic ice cream brand Ben and Jerry’s, has issued a stark warning that the company’s identity could be destroyed if it remains tied to its new parent company, Magnum. Cohen’s comments come as part of a long running dispute over the brand’s ability to express its well known social activism and maintain the independence of its board. For decades, Ben and Jerry’s has built a reputation not only for creative flavours but also for outspoken positions on social justice, climate action and human rights. Cohen fears these values may now be at risk.

Magnum Takes Control as Unilever Spins Off the Business

The conflict intensified this week after the Magnum Ice Cream Company, known as TMICC, officially began trading on the European stock market. The move comes as part of Unilever’s decision to spin off its ice cream division. While the restructuring aims to streamline operations and sharpen business focus, it also places Ben and Jerry’s under the leadership of a new corporate owner with its own priorities.

Magnum’s leadership has attempted to reassure critics. A spokesperson said the company wants to build and strengthen Ben and Jerry’s “powerful, non partisan values based position in the world.” The message suggests that Magnum recognises the importance of the brand’s activist identity. Still, Cohen and supporters remain sceptical, arguing that without structural independence Ben and Jerry’s may face pressure to soften or change its advocacy work.

A Brand Built on Activism Faces a Turning Point

Ben and Jerry’s has long been an unusual presence in the global food industry, blending commercial success with bold political messaging. The company’s board of directors was designed to operate with a unique level of independence, ensuring that its social mission stayed central even after its sale to Unilever in 2000. Over time, that arrangement has come under strain as the board and corporate management clashed over decisions related to marketing, partnerships and activism.

The tension became particularly visible in recent years when Ben and Jerry’s took public positions on international conflicts, US policy debates and climate action. These statements often generated media attention but also raised concerns among corporate executives about reputational and financial risk.

What Is at Stake for the Brand

Cohen’s warning captures what many supporters and critics see as the core issue. Can a brand built on activism continue to thrive within a large multinational structure that prioritises shareholder returns and broad market appeal The fear is that attempts to keep Ben and Jerry’s non partisan or commercially safe could dilute the boldness that made it stand out in the first place.

Magnum’s reassurance may help ease some of the concern, but the uncertainty remains. Even small shifts in how the board operates or how public statements are approved could significantly influence the brand’s identity. Consumers who admire Ben and Jerry’s for its outspoken values may react strongly to any sign that the company is stepping back from its social commitments.

A Critical Moment for an Iconic Brand

As Magnum begins its first weeks on the stock market, the future of Ben and Jerry’s activism remains unclear. The coming months will reveal whether the new parent company intends to preserve the unusual governance structure that has protected the brand’s voice for more than twenty years. For Cohen, the stakes are high. He argues that losing independence would not only change the company’s messaging but undermine everything the brand has stood for since its founding.

Whether the dispute evolves into cooperation or further conflict may determine how Ben and Jerry’s is perceived by customers worldwide. For now, the brand faces a pivotal moment as it tries to balance its social mission with the realities of corporate ownership.