Removed Ben and Jerry’s Chair Accuses Parent Company of Smear Threats

Allegations emerge from a deepening corporate dispute

The former chair of Ben and Jerry’s independent board has accused the company that owns the iconic ice cream brand of threatening to damage her reputation in public. Anuradha Mittal, who served as chair for seven years, says she was pressured to step down after being warned that defamatory statements could be released if she refused to leave her role.

In an interview with the BBC, Mittal said the alleged threat came from Magnum, which owns Ben and Jerry’s. According to her account, the situation reflects a wider and increasingly hostile conflict over the independence of the board and its ability to pursue social and political causes that have long defined the Vermont based brand.

A clash over independence and values

Ben and Jerry’s has built its global reputation not only on ice cream but also on outspoken activism. The company has frequently taken public positions on climate change, human rights, and social justice. When it was acquired, safeguards were put in place to preserve the independence of its board and protect its social mission.

Mittal argues that those safeguards are now under threat. She says tensions have escalated as the parent company has sought greater control over board decisions and public messaging. In her view, the pressure placed on her was part of a broader attempt to weaken the board’s autonomy.

The dispute highlights a long running question about how activist brands can operate once they are absorbed into large multinational structures. What begins as a partnership can evolve into conflict when corporate priorities and ethical missions collide.

Parent company disputes the allegations

Magnum has rejected Mittal’s characterization of events. The company said that it believed she no longer met the criteria required to serve on the board. According to its statement, this conclusion followed an investigation carried out by external advisors that it had commissioned.

From the company’s perspective, the decision was based on governance standards rather than retaliation. It has not publicly detailed the findings of the investigation, citing confidentiality, but maintains that the process was appropriate and justified.

The contrast between the two accounts has left observers with sharply differing narratives. One presents a whistleblower facing reputational threats, while the other frames the removal as a routine governance decision.

The personal impact of the dispute

For Mittal, the removal marks a painful end to years of involvement with a brand she says she supported out of shared values. She has described the experience as distressing, particularly given her belief that her role was to safeguard the very independence that is now being questioned.

Her claims of a threatened smear campaign add a personal dimension to what might otherwise be seen as a corporate governance disagreement. Allegations of reputational pressure, if proven, could raise serious questions about how dissenting voices are treated within large corporate structures.

Wider implications for ethical brands

The dispute is being closely watched by advocates of ethical business and corporate accountability. Ben and Jerry’s is often cited as a model for combining profitability with principled activism. If its independent board is perceived as being sidelined, critics argue it could weaken confidence in similar governance models elsewhere.

At the same time, multinational owners face pressure from investors and regulators to maintain consistency and control across their brands. Balancing these demands with promises of independence remains a challenge, especially when political or social positions carry commercial risk.

What comes next for the brand

The conflict shows no sign of immediate resolution. Mittal has continued to speak publicly about her experience, while Magnum has stood by its decision. Legal, reputational, and operational consequences may follow, depending on how the dispute develops.

For consumers, the episode raises questions about how much influence activist messaging still holds within global brands. For companies, it serves as a reminder that commitments to independence and social purpose can become flashpoints if expectations diverge.

As the story unfolds, it is likely to shape future discussions about corporate ownership, board autonomy, and the limits of ethical branding within multinational business structures.