Jerry Greenfield, co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s, announced his resignation this week, saying he can no longer, “in good conscience … remain an employee of Ben & Jerry’s,” after 47 years with the company he helped build. In an open letter posted by his longtime business partner Ben Cohen on social media, Greenfield accused parent company Unilever of stifling the brand’s voice on social justice issues, and of violating the understanding made when Unilever acquired the ice cream maker in 2000. The move comes as the company is being reorganized under a new ice-cream entity called The Magnum Ice Cream Company.
In the Instagram post, Greenfield shared his decision along with his full letter. He wrote that the promise of autonomy — part of the original agreement with Unilever — has gradually been eroded. “Standing up for the values of justice, equity, and our shared humanity has never been more important, and yet Ben & Jerry’s has been silenced, sidelined for fear of upsetting those in power,” he stated. He described his departure as one of the “hardest and most painful decisions” of his life.
Greenfield’s resignation intensifies a battle over the future direction of Ben & Jerry’s that had already been growing louder in recent months. Critics, including the cofounders, say that recent restructuring under Unilever and the information emerging about restrictions on public messaging betray the spirit of the original acquisition, which, they say, guaranteed the company’s ability to take public stands on political, environmental, and human rights issues.
Demerger and Structure Under The Magnum Ice Cream Company
Unilever is in the process of spinning off its ice cream division into a standalone business, now officially operating under the name The Magnum Ice Cream Company (TMICC). According to a demerger document published by Unilever, TMICC will be incorporated in the Netherlands and is expected to have its shares listed on the Amsterdam, London, and New York stock exchanges in mid-November 2025. Unilever will keep a minority stake (less than 20 percent) after the separation.
The founders have argued that this organizational transition under TMICC has been used to curb Ben & Jerry’s freedom to act on its founding social mission. The Independent, in an article published on September 17, noted that Greenfield and Cohen say Unilever has been interfering with Ben & Jerry’s ability to issue statements on issues like Gaza, civil rights, and other conflicts.
In the Letter: What Greenfield Claims
Greenfield’s letter, posted on Instagram via Cohen, describes that the autonomy promised in the 2000 deal is not being honored. “For more than twenty years under their ownership, Ben & Jerry’s stood up and spoke out in support of peace, justice, and human rights, not as abstract concepts, but in relation to real events happening in our world. That independence existed in no small part because of the unique merger agreement Ben and I negotiated with Unilever, one that enshrined our social mission and values in the company’s governance structure in perpetuity,” Greenfield wrote, adding that it is “profoundly disappointing to come to the conclusion that that independence … is gone.”
He said that Ben & Jerry’s has been prevented from publicly taking stances on topics that the brand historically embraced — "Standing up for the values of justice, equity, and our shared humanity has never been more important, and yet Ben & Jerry’s has been silenced, sidelined for fear of upsetting those in power. It’s easy to stand up and speak out when there’s nothing at risk. The real test of values is when times are challenging and you have something to lose."
The letter makes clear that Greenfield sees this not merely as an internal disagreement about marketing or branding, but as a betrayal of core values on which the company was built.
Unilever's Reaction
In a statement on Wednesday, Magnum spokesperson said the company was deeply grateful for Greenfield’s decades of contributions to Ben & Jerry’s but made clear it does not share his viewpoint.
“We disagree with his perspective and have sought to engage both co-founders in a constructive conversation on how to strengthen Ben & Jerry’s powerful values-based position in the world,” the spokesperson said — adding that Magnum is still committed to Ben & Jerry’s mission and remains “focused on carrying forward the legacy of peace, love, and ice cream of this iconic, much-loved brand.”
Public Reaction
On Ben & Jerry’s most recent Instagram post, more than 1,000 comments poured in from customers expressing solidarity with Greenfield and anger toward the company. Some vowed to boycott the brand entirely, with one user writing, “YOU BETTER MAKE THINGS RIGHT WITH JERRY.”
Others shared messages of gratitude, including “We love you Jerry,” while longtime fans said they could no longer support the company. “I won’t be buying B&Js anymore without you,” one commenter wrote, while another added, “Unfollowing and probably never buying again because you have let us down as a company by not respecting the values in which the company was founded on … it was the reason I paid the price tag.”
Background: Tensions Over Activism and Agreement Violations
Much of the present conflict grew out of events in recent years. In 2021, Ben & Jerry’s made headlines when it announced plans to stop selling ice cream in Israeli-occupied territories, including settlements in the West Bank. That decision, which aligned with the company’s socially conscious identity, triggered disputes with Unilever and legal challenges over contracts and licensing.
Additional issues arose over concerns that Unilever was interfering with the social mission board — a body meant to oversee Ben & Jerry’s work on its mission beyond profit. In March 2025, Ben & Jerry’s accused Unilever of unlawfully removing its CEO David Stever, claiming the decision was retaliation for his support of activism and public statements.
Cohen also used Instagram to launch the campaign #FreeBenandJerrys, posting that Ben & Jerry’s should not be folded into The Magnum Ice Cream Company, the new entity Unilever is spinning off to investors. In his message, he accused Magnum of carrying forward “a history of silencing Ben & Jerry’s when the company takes a stand on the social issues that matter most,” despite promises of independence made in the 2000 merger. “@magnum you’re ripping the heart out of @benandjerrys — set us free!” Cohen wrote.
Greenfield’s exit is being seen as a stark move: a cofounder resigning not over money or internal disagreements over operations, but over loss of moral and social integrity. It crystallizes the tension between being a mission-driven brand and being part of a large global corporation.
“It was always about more than just ice cream; it was a way to spread love and invite others into the fight for equity, justice, and a better world. Coming to the conclusion that this is no longer possible at Ben & Jerry’s means I can no longer remain part of Ben & Jerry’s. If I can’t carry those values forward inside the company today, then I will carry them forward outside, with all the love and conviction I can,” he wrote.
Leave a Reply