Ben & Jerry’s Accuses Unilever of Ousting CEO Over Political Views
Ben & Jerry’s has accused its parent company, Unilever, of forcing out CEO Matthew McCarthy in retaliation for the ice cream brand’s political stance. According to newly filed court documents, the company alleges that Unilever is sidelining McCarthy due to his support of the brand’s progressive values, marking a new chapter in the ongoing legal battle between the two entities.
Dispute Over Brand Autonomy Intensifies
Ben & Jerry’s, long known for its social activism, has had tensions with Unilever since the consumer goods giant acquired it in 2000. The Vermont-based ice cream maker claims its independent board was designed to safeguard its mission and values, but recent conflicts highlight a growing divide.
The dispute escalated in 2021 when Ben & Jerry’s announced it would stop selling products in Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories. Unilever later overrode this decision, transferring business operations in Israel to a local licensee — a move Ben & Jerry’s sued to block, arguing it violated their merger agreement. The lawsuit was dismissed in 2022, but the rift between the brand and Unilever persisted.
Legal Filing Alleges Retaliation
The latest development suggests Unilever’s actions go beyond operational control. Ben & Jerry’s board argues in court documents that Unilever forced McCarthy out because of his alignment with the brand’s activism. The filing states that the board was not consulted about his departure, which they claim breaches the unique governance agreement set during the acquisition.
Unilever has not publicly commented on the specific allegations regarding McCarthy but has previously insisted that it retains ultimate decision-making authority as the brand’s owner.
Industry Implications
This legal battle underscores the challenges global brands face when managing subsidiaries with strong independent identities. For FMCG companies, it raises questions about how much corporate oversight should be exerted over mission-driven brands and how political positions affect consumer perception.
With Unilever continually balancing shareholder expectations and brand autonomy, this conflict highlights the increasing intersection of business and activism. The outcome could set a precedent for how multinational corporations engage with socially conscious subsidiaries in the future.