Author: Faith Spalding, Graphics: Cindy Chen
Ben & Jerry’s successes as a social justice-forward company seem to render the “Go Woke and Go Broke” model inaccurate. Yet with more pressure on the ice cream maker from parent-company Unilever, Ben & Jerry’s advocacy efforts have diverged from its founders’ vision.
Intro
Ben & Jerry’s, also known as Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Holdings Inc., is known for its “Peace, Love and Ice Cream” motto and famous flavors like the “Tonight Dough,” spoofing Jimmy Fallon’s nighttime hosting gig. But beyond ice cream, the company has a long history of social advocacy that it has proudly maintained until recent corporate upheavals amidst our contentious geopolitical environment. As a business, Ben & Jerry’s makes fair trade and sustainable sourcing, strong supply chain management, and climate-conscious initiatives prime company concerns. At face value, Ben & Jerry’s seems to be the blueprint for ethical models of business. But have these company standards held up over time? Has Ben & Jerry’s been able to adapt to an ever-evolving market while maintaining its core mission for social justice?
Beginnings
Ben & Jerry’s first opened on May 5, 1978 in Bennington, Vermont, founded by Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield. The two grew up together in Long Island, N.Y., founding their company in a renovated gas station, with a vision to focus on intense and creative ice cream flavors. At the time, the market for super-premium ice cream (less sugar, natural ingredients, and air churned) was dominated by Haagen-Dazs, an American luxury ice cream brand founded 18 years prior. However, serious competitors for luxury ice cream brands like Ben & Jerry’s were gaining ground because of their super-premium recipes, despite only comprising about 11% of the market. By 1981, while overall ice cream sales had increased by only 1%, the super-premium ice cream sector had increased by 17%. Riding this wave of growth and expanding from their ice cream shops to wholesale deliveries to the northeast in 1979, Cohen and Greenfield had a $30 million empire by 1987. Ben & Jerry’s ice cream was in stores across the country (in 35 states to be exact), and in 1994 — the year Cohen stepped down as CEO due to corporate restructuring — they hit $150 million in revenue.
Environmental Activism
Even after amassing an incredible amount of capital, the company has maintained its social justice-forward approach, setting the bar for models of corporate activism. In 1988, the company adopted a mission to produce the best natural ice cream (superpremium ice cream with organically sourced, farm-to-table ingredients), and earn a sustainable financial return to foster a “linked prosperity” for the business and those connected to it. This has evolved into their current wider mission statement geared toward human rights and dignity, social and economic justice, and environmental protection, restoration, and regeneration. Founding the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation in 1985, Cohen and Greenfield pledged 7.5% of the company’s pre-tax profits to charitable efforts, such as Black Workers Matter, Homes For All St. Louis, Salvation Farms and many other grassroots organizations.
Moreover, the Ben & Jerry’s foundation offers a grant program for grassroots organizations committed to social and climate justice.
In 1989, the company pioneered the fight against recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), developed by the architectural-tech company Monsanto. rBGH is a genetically modified hormone typically given to cows to increase milk production by up to 30%, known to pose major health risks to both humans and animals alike, specifically elevated cancer risks. However, due to the increased milk production as a result of rBGH, it additionally brings the price of milk down. However, Cohen and Greenfield were unwilling to unethically source their dairy products, instead paying a premium to their farms, which exclusively produced milk without rBGH.
Ben & Jerry’s also aims to curb greenhouse gas emissions, with the overall goal of transferring to 100% renewable energy by 2050. According to the Ben and Jerry’s 2021 Social and Environmental Assessment Report, approximately 3.3 lbs of CO2e is emitted per pint of ice cream made. To further curb emissions on a larger scale, Ben & Jerry’s is taking on a multi-year Low Carbon Dairy Project. This pilot project focuses on seven different avenues for improved sustainability: enteric, regenerative agriculture, nutritious homegrown feed, renewable energy, animal welfare and longevity, nature and biodiversity and manure management. Part of the process involves benchmarking the carbon footprint of each company dairy farm, taking measurements based on units of CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent) per kilogram of fat-protein corrected milk.
Social Activism
Social justice advocacy has remained an enduring part of Cohen and Greenfield’s company legacy, even as recent revelations reveal attempts from parent-company Unilever to silence the founders. In recent memory, Ben & Jerry’s spoke out on behalf of the Black Lives Matter movement, issuing a crucial statement entitled, “Silence is not an Option”. For the company, social activism has functioned as a mode of corporate responsibility. From a corporate perspective, this activism has not hindered the company’s customer base; in fact, a recent study from Jump Associates reveals that purpose-driven companies, like Ben & Jerry’s, outperform their competition and pose additional possibilities for long-term stock advantage. In fact, the same study — used to analyze Ben & Jerry’s performance — found that over twenty years, purpose-driven companies outperform competitors in delivering market returns that are 3x their competitors and 5x the S&P 500.
We haven’t just seen this with Ben & Jerry’s; when Disney openly opposed Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill, right-wing inflammatory action reheated the argument that supposed “Wokeness” damages company reputation, hence the phrase “Go Woke and Go Broke.” While Disney faced an initial backlash that manifested in small sales losses, their gross profit for 2022 was $28.321 billion: a 27 percent increase from 2021. Sales losses from their progressive stance were a “drop in the bucket” compared to company gains. Until recently, Ben & Jerry’s has been unwavering in their progressive values and company activism; in addition to their statements on the Black Lives Matter Movement, the company has supported voting and anti-racism campaigns, reproductive rights, and its founders have been critical of the lack of humanitarian aid in Gaza.
Corporate Maneuvers
While it’s clear that Ben & Jerry’s has become a company model for social responsibility and activism, its corporate structure is far from perfect. Before the 2000 acquisition of Ben & Jerry’s by parent company Unilever, control of the company was structured in a way that gave Greenfield and Cohen a vast amount of power. Its board of directors was made up of three “staggered” classes of directors, with only one up for reelection at a time. Even more so, the board was controlled by corporate insiders with Ben being Vice-Chair and Jerry being Chair. Thus shareholders were stunted by corporate maneuvers, unable to wage real voting ability by electing new directors.
There were also issues with shareholder board and voting representation, with the company not adhering to traditional models of the “one-share-one-vote” rule for ideal firms, where shareholders have more representation and thus more of a corporate voice. Ben & Jerry’s had three classes of equity. Class A adhered to the one-share-one-vote rule, while Class B shares, with each share having 10 votes, were primarily held by Ben Cohen, Jerry Greenfield, and another company insider. They collectively controlled 47% of the voting rights despite owning just 17% of the outstanding common equity of the Company. The third class of shares was owned by the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation, a community action organization under the control of Cohen and Greenfield that had veto rights over tenders and mergers. A takeover of the company would essentially require the agreement of the foundation, which Cohen and Greenfield were both principal stockholders of. Essentially, this functioned as a major defense mechanism, underscoring the amount of control Cohen and Greenfield had in the company.
This undemocratic corporate approach was also in major conflict with the ethical core of the business model of Ben & Jerry’s. A Harvard Law School study reveals that in a 1998 sample of major US corporations, 58% of companies sampled had a staggered board of directors, 1.78% had unequal voting shares, 14.4% had supermajority rules and 10.8% had dual-class shares. Ben & Jerry’s had all of these provisions, an incredibly rare exception to normalized company monopoly of much larger firms. This was a prime example of poor corporate structure and management; while Cohen and Greenfield sought to maintain the company’s social mission, by maintaining its independence, its poor corporate structure remained unchanged.
On April 11, 2000, Ben & Jerry’s board announced that it had approved Unilever’s offer at $43.60 a share. With overwhelming shareholder support, Unilever assumed company control in a transaction valued at $326 million, though Cohen and Greenfield continued to have a large amount of shares in the company. However, Ben & Jerry’s relationship with Unilever has been far from perfect. Tensions right now sit at an all-time high; Greenfield parted ways with Ben & Jerry’s mid-September, accusing Unilever in a social media statement of curtailing the “independence to pursue (their) values”, despite a pact between the two companies that Unilever’s subsidiary can determine its own social mission by retaining its own independent board.
Greenfield’s decision comes after multiple legal altercations between Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever. Last year, Ben & Jerry’s filed a lawsuit accusing the parent company of exerting censorship and muffling advocacy for Palestine, violating a settlement from a 2022 dispute. Unilever has continuously prevented Ben and Jerry’s from issuing statements calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, but has seemingly expanded its veto power, reportedly blocking a post from publication that referenced abortion, climate change, minimum wages and universal healthcare. This reflects an escalation of ongoing tensions between the two companies; earlier this year, Unilever announced that it was spinning off its ice cream businesses, including Ben & Jerry’s, into a singular company called Magnum Ice Cream Company. With major restructuring in the immediate future for Ben & Jerry’s, 2026 will test Unilever’s ability to navigate a market of uncertainty.
Ben & Jerry’s has dealt with further major issues at the corporate level, especially after a 2023 New York Times article exposed Ben & Jerry’s along with a series of other major companies like Target and Walmart for exploiting migrant children. Young teenagers were allegedly forced into harsh and brutal working conditions, just to make ends meet. The company was also facing a class-action lawsuit as a result of these revelations, the lawsuit citing the company’s “virtue-signaling” representations that profess concern for farmworker welfare. These claims are incredibly disturbing considering the company’s longstanding commitment to equity and justice; clearly corporate ethical standards struggle to prevent major abuses.
The Go Woke and Go Broke Myth
Despite the company’s discrepancies, one thing remains clear; the “Go Woke and Go Broke” argument has not been an issue for Ben & Jerry’s. Coined by American author John Ringo in 2018, the theory asserts that organizations that use politically-correct actions and activism as part of the company model and strategy will ultimately experience major losses because of abandoning mass reach. But in addition to Jump’s study revealing that purpose-driven companies outperform their competitors, data from an Unsterotype Alliance and Oxford University global study showcased that advertising campaigns with an emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion have a positive impact on profits, sales and brand worth. If anything, purpose-driven and inclusion-forward company positions create more benefits than losses within our current impact economy.
The function of social responsibility within Ben & Jerry’s is actually beneficial, reflected through high rankings of customer loyalty and brand satisfaction. In 2023, statistica reports that Ben & Jerry’s was the leading brand of ice cream in the United States. Part of this success comes from incorporating Ben & Jerry’s customers into activist activity. For instance, after the company issued its 2020 statement supporting condemning the death of George Floyd as a result of police brutality and offered grassroots advocacy resources, of the 3.3 million views on the page’s statement, 195,000 actions taken on the website were related to activism activity.
No company is perfect, especially corporations controlled by top executives and Wall Street veterans. As “Go Woke and Go Broke” continues to be a rallying cry for the GOP, it’s clear that Ben & Jerry’s social justice mission hasn’t been an issue for consumers. Instead, poor corporate structure and decreased momentum in the ice cream market has resulted in the company’s losses, particularly shown by the stagnancy of Unilever’s 2023 sales. As the parent company prepares to part ways with its ice cream division in 2025, Ben & Jerry’s will have to adapt to a market that is increasingly leaning into fitness and wellness industries. The company’s overarching ethical business model has held up for more than 45 years, proving the “Go Woke, and Go Broke” model inaccurate. However, as Cohen and Greenfield sound the alarm on corporate overreach by Unilever, Ben & Jerry’s true commitment to corporate responsibility through social justice is under pressure.
Take-Home Points
- Since the early days of the company, founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield have prioritized ESG standards and have made social and climate activism the core foundations of Ben & Jerry’s “purpose-driven” mission.
- While the “Go Woke and Go Broke” myth continues to be a rallying cry, Ben & Jerry’s social justice and responsibility mission has solidified company success and was the leading ice cream brand in the US in 2023.
- Prior to Ben & Jerry’s acquisition by parent-company Unilever in 2000, the brand internally grappled with unequal corporate structure and shareholder power alongside market losses.
- After several years of legal disputes, co-founder Jerry Greenfield parted ways with the company this September over Unilever censorship on company advocacy efforts.