Ben &Jerry's ban ice cream sales

[Grafenwalder]

This is an interesting one.

Founders of Ben & Jerry's ice cream have stopped sales of their ice cream in occupied territories of Palestine saying it was “inconsistent with our values” .

Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett has threatened "severe consequences" and outside of Israel, Americans dumped tubs of ice cream and posted the pictures on social media!

The screechy lot can't scream "antiseeeemite" either as Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield are Jewish. Awkward!!

https://www.ft.com/content/1f89ac04-5a0 ... d739211277

[Raggamuffin]

I can't read that article without subscribing.

Severe consequences because people can't buy ice cream?

[Grafenwalder]

During a trip to Vermont seven years ago, I toured the Ben & Jerry’s factory, as you do if you don’t ski and are bored of leaves, and was pleased to see Jerry Greenfield still pottering among the ice cream machines. 

The co-founder’s presence added to the illusion that this was an independent business, even though it had been sold to Unilever in 2000.

That illusion was carefully cultivated at the time of the takeover and has generally served both the ice cream maker and its parent company well for two decades — until now.

This week Ben & Jerry’s announced that selling ice cream in the occupied Palestinian territories was “inconsistent with our values” and that it would stop, an apparent protest against Israeli settlements.

The brand has a long history of bold policy stances but has never encountered such a ferocious response. Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett warned Unilever of “severe consequences” including legal action. But it was the reaction outside Israel — Americans dumped tubs of ice cream and posted the pictures on social media — that poses the biggest threat.

If that were not enough, Unilever also faced a backlash from the independent Ben & Jerry’s board, whose chair complained that the press release had been watered down by the parent group, which was “trying to destroy the soul of the company”.

During takeovers, acquirers often issue vague assurances only to discard them later. For instance, Kraft’s pledge to keep open a Cadbury factory during its 2010 takeover bid for the chocolate maker was jettisoned soon after the deal closed.

But Unilever’s assurances were different. For founders wanting to preserve the spirit of their company even after selling out to a multinational, the merger agreement between Unilever and Ben & Jerry’s is still seen as a gold standard. 

It ensured that Ben & Jerry’s would continue to have an independent board entrusted with “preserving and enhancing the objectives of the historical social mission of the company”.

The complaint from the board’s chair, Anuradha Mittal, to NBC News this week was that although the withdrawal policy belonged to Ben & Jerry’s, the statement had been written by Unilever and included a commitment to remain in Israel, which had not been blessed by the ice cream company’s board.

It is a sticky mess. Incapable of offering a coherent response, Unilever seems to be praying the backlash will not grow into a broader boycott of its products.

On previous occasions, Ben & Jerry’s edgier approach produced mutual benefits. The ice cream maker supported Black Lives Matter and joined a boycott of Facebook advertisers where Unilever acted later or not at all. The semi-autonomous Ben & Jerry’s could take the risk and reward; Unilever could avoid direct responsibility but enjoy the marketing boost.

Unilever chief executive Alan Jope said on Thursday that the withdrawal had been a decision “by Ben & Jerry’s and its independent board” that was “in line with the acquisition agreement that we signed 20 years ago”.

This distancing act is deeply disingenuous. Ben & Jerry’s independence is carefully limited in the merger agreement. Unilever’s former US boss Richard Goldstein gave the game away in Ice Cream Social, a history of the Vermont-based company.

“I felt that what we were giving him [Ben Cohen], in the end, didn’t matter much to Unilever,” Goldstein is quoted as saying. “We were getting the brand. We were getting the business. They would have their own board of directors, but we would control what I regard as the key factor in success or failure, which is the selection of the chief executive.”

Unilever capitalised on this soon after the deal closed when Ben & Jerry’s proposed a CEO shortlist and the parent company ignored it, imposing its own CEO. Over the years, Unilever-appointed CEOs have vetoed social activism proposed by Ben & Jerry’s staff including over the Iraq war and same-sex partnerships.

Current Ben & Jerry’s chief executive Matthew McCarthy seems more gung-ho than those predecessors. “One of the questions I get most often is, aren’t you afraid of alienating consumers by the stands that you take at Ben & Jerry’s? It’s the exact opposite,” McCarthy told The Wall Street Journal in May.

He may have miscalculated. Regardless, Unilever owns this latest policy and should either defend it or change it.

[Maddog]

How much ice cream do they sell in occupied territories I wonder? I wonder what percentage is consumed by the Arab population?

Of course Texas has already made a statement. We have state law that prohibits our government from purchasing products made by companies that boycott Israel. Of course I doubt our government buys any of that stuff anyway. Bluebell is an ice cream institution here.

I'm sure this probably helps Ben and Jerry sell a little more ice cream in the long run.

[Raggamuffin]

Why did they need to announce it? They could just stop selling it in occupied territories.

Thanks for posting that Grafen.

[Maddog]

During a trip to Vermont seven years ago, I toured the Ben & Jerry’s factory, as you do if you don’t ski and are bored of leaves, and was pleased to see Jerry Greenfield still pottering among the ice cream machines. 

The co-founder’s presence added to the illusion that this was an independent business, even though it had been sold to Unilever in 2000.

That illusion was carefully cultivated at the time of the takeover and has generally served both the ice cream maker and its parent company well for two decades — until now.

This week Ben & Jerry’s announced that selling ice cream in the occupied Palestinian territories was “inconsistent with our values” and that it would stop, an apparent protest against Israeli settlements.

The brand has a long history of bold policy stances but has never encountered such a ferocious response. Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett warned Unilever of “severe consequences” including legal action. But it was the reaction outside Israel — Americans dumped tubs of ice cream and posted the pictures on social media — that poses the biggest threat.

If that were not enough, Unilever also faced a backlash from the independent Ben & Jerry’s board, whose chair complained that the press release had been watered down by the parent group, which was “trying to destroy the soul of the company”.

During takeovers, acquirers often issue vague assurances only to discard them later. For instance, Kraft’s pledge to keep open a Cadbury factory during its 2010 takeover bid for the chocolate maker was jettisoned soon after the deal closed.

But Unilever’s assurances were different. For founders wanting to preserve the spirit of their company even after selling out to a multinational, the merger agreement between Unilever and Ben & Jerry’s is still seen as a gold standard. 

It ensured that Ben & Jerry’s would continue to have an independent board entrusted with “preserving and enhancing the objectives of the historical social mission of the company”.

The complaint from the board’s chair, Anuradha Mittal, to NBC News this week was that although the withdrawal policy belonged to Ben & Jerry’s, the statement had been written by Unilever and included a commitment to remain in Israel, which had not been blessed by the ice cream company’s board.

It is a sticky mess. Incapable of offering a coherent response, Unilever seems to be praying the backlash will not grow into a broader boycott of its products.

On previous occasions, Ben & Jerry’s edgier approach produced mutual benefits. The ice cream maker supported Black Lives Matter and joined a boycott of Facebook advertisers where Unilever acted later or not at all. The semi-autonomous Ben & Jerry’s could take the risk and reward; Unilever could avoid direct responsibility but enjoy the marketing boost.

Unilever chief executive Alan Jope said on Thursday that the withdrawal had been a decision “by Ben & Jerry’s and its independent board” that was “in line with the acquisition agreement that we signed 20 years ago”.

This distancing act is deeply disingenuous. Ben & Jerry’s independence is carefully limited in the merger agreement. Unilever’s former US boss Richard Goldstein gave the game away in Ice Cream Social, a history of the Vermont-based company.

“I felt that what we were giving him [Ben Cohen], in the end, didn’t matter much to Unilever,” Goldstein is quoted as saying. “We were getting the brand. We were getting the business. They would have their own board of directors, but we would control what I regard as the key factor in success or failure, which is the selection of the chief executive.”

Unilever capitalised on this soon after the deal closed when Ben & Jerry’s proposed a CEO shortlist and the parent company ignored it, imposing its own CEO. Over the years, Unilever-appointed CEOs have vetoed social activism proposed by Ben & Jerry’s staff including over the Iraq war and same-sex partnerships.

Current Ben & Jerry’s chief executive Matthew McCarthy seems more gung-ho than those predecessors. “One of the questions I get most often is, aren’t you afraid of alienating consumers by the stands that you take at Ben & Jerry’s? It’s the exact opposite,” McCarthy told The Wall Street Journal in May.

He may have miscalculated. Regardless, Unilever owns this latest policy and should either defend it or change it.

This complicates it. Didn't know they sold out to a multinational.

If the state if Texas boycotts Unilever, that would be different.

It's made other corporations rethink their policy in terms of Israel.

[Maddog]

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/22/texas-g ... ycott.html


I forgot about the pension funds.


The whole thing is a bit if kabuki theater really.

They will sell the ice cream in Israel, to the "occupiers" but not the same people in the occupied territory..

[Grafenwalder]

Why did they need to announce it? They could just stop selling it in occupied territories.

Thanks for posting that Grafen.

Thats what made it newsworthy, the fact they'd stopped sales in Israeli occupied Palestinian land. They're both Jewish so the usual accusations of antisemitism which would normally follow something like this, won't work.

[Grafenwalder]

This complicates it. Didn't know they sold out to a multinational.

If the state if Texas boycotts Unilever, that would be different.

It's made other corporations rethink their policy in terms of Israel.

I didn't either but the other part which amused me was Americans dumping tubs of their ice cream and posting the pictures on social media.

Reminded me of when Lennon made his infamous quip about The Beatles being more popular than Jesus which resulted in Americans organising Beatle bonfires and encouraging fans to burn their Beatle stuff. You've always been a bit strange!

[Maddog]

This complicates it. Didn't know they sold out to a multinational.

If the state if Texas boycotts Unilever, that would be different.

It's made other corporations rethink their policy in terms of Israel.

I didn't either but the other part which amused me was Americans dumping tubs of their ice cream and posting the pictures on social media.

Reminded me of when Lennon made his infamous quip about The Beatles being more popular than Jesus which resulted in Americans organising Beatle bonfires and encouraging fans to burn their Beatle stuff. You've always been a bit strange!

You find it odd that folks use social media to promote their positions on contemporary social issues?

Are you new to this planet?

[Grafenwalder]

This complicates it. Didn't know they sold out to a multinational.

If the state if Texas boycotts Unilever, that would be different.

It's made other corporations rethink their policy in terms of Israel.

I didn't either but the other part which amused me was Americans dumping tubs of their ice cream and posting the pictures on social media.

Reminded me of when Lennon made his infamous quip about The Beatles being more popular than Jesus which resulted in Americans organising Beatle bonfires and encouraging fans to burn their Beatle stuff. You've always been a bit strange!

You find it odd that folks use social media to promote their positions on contemporary social issues?

Are you new to this planet?

No - Americans dumping tubs of B&Js ice cream just because of their stance over Israelis occupying Palestinian land. But you knew that didn't you?

[Raggamuffin]

Why did they need to announce it? They could just stop selling it in occupied territories.

Thanks for posting that Grafen.

Thats what made it newsworthy, the fact they'd stopped sales in Israeli occupied Palestinian land. They're both Jewish so the usual accusations of antisemitism which would normally follow something like this, won't work.

It makes it newsworthy, but it could damage their business in the US, yes? Why would they want that?

[Maddog]

This complicates it. Didn't know they sold out to a multinational.

If the state if Texas boycotts Unilever, that would be different.

It's made other corporations rethink their policy in terms of Israel.

I didn't either but the other part which amused me was Americans dumping tubs of their ice cream and posting the pictures on social media.

Reminded me of when Lennon made his infamous quip about The Beatles being more popular than Jesus which resulted in Americans organising Beatle bonfires and encouraging fans to burn their Beatle stuff. You've always been a bit strange!

You find it odd that folks use social media to promote their positions on contemporary social issues?

Are you new to this planet?

No - Americans dumping tubs of B&Js ice cream just because of their stance over Israelis occupying Palestinian land. But you knew that didn't you?

People protest all sorts of ways. Thanfully they only destroyed their own property.

[Grafenwalder]

Why did they need to announce it? They could just stop selling it in occupied territories.

Thanks for posting that Grafen.

Thats what made it newsworthy, the fact they'd stopped sales in Israeli occupied Palestinian land. They're both Jewish so the usual accusations of antisemitism which would normally follow something like this, won't work.

It makes it newsworthy, but it could damage their business in the US, yes? Why would they want that?

They have a global market. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_%26_J ... _locations

America is just a country on planet earth. I find it hilarious they throw their tubs of B&J's out in a hissy fit. Silly buggers.

[Grafenwalder]

This complicates it. Didn't know they sold out to a multinational.

If the state if Texas boycotts Unilever, that would be different.

It's made other corporations rethink their policy in terms of Israel.

I didn't either but the other part which amused me was Americans dumping tubs of their ice cream and posting the pictures on social media.

Reminded me of when Lennon made his infamous quip about The Beatles being more popular than Jesus which resulted in Americans organising Beatle bonfires and encouraging fans to burn their Beatle stuff. You've always been a bit strange!

You find it odd that folks use social media to promote their positions on contemporary social issues?

Are you new to this planet?

No - Americans dumping tubs of B&Js ice cream just because of their stance over Israelis occupying Palestinian land. But you knew that didn't you?

People protest all sorts of ways. Thanfully they only destroyed their own property.

More fool them. We're having a heatwave here - ideal ice cream weather.