In a developing saga within the ice cream industry, Anuradha Mittal, the former chair of Ben & Jerry’s, has come forward with serious allegations against Magnum, the company that owns the brand. Mittal, who served as the independent board chair for seven years, claims that she was threatened by Magnum with a public smear campaign if she did not resign from her position. This accusation adds a layer of complexity to an already contentious relationship between the Vermont-based ice cream maker and its parent company, which has intensified regarding board independence and social responsibilities.
Mittal’s concerns reflect a broader dispute that has been brewing between Ben & Jerry’s and Magnum. This discord stems from issues related to the autonomy of Ben & Jerry’s board and its commitment to social missions, which the brand has been known for since its inception. The conflict reached a culmination point when Magnum declared that Mittal “no longer met the criteria to serve” on the board, a conclusion reached following an investigation it had commissioned.
In a statement released on a recent Monday, Magnum outlined several structural changes to Ben & Jerry’s governance. Among these changes was the introduction of a nine-year term limit for board members, signaling a shift in how the company views its leadership structure. Furthermore, Mittal was informed of her removal from the board via a letter, which also indicated that two other board members would have to exit as part of the restructuring.
Compounding the tension, an audit of the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation, the company’s charitable arm, identified significant deficiencies in financial oversight, governance, and compliance procedures. Mittal shared her perspective during an interview with the BBC’s World Business Report, stating that there has been an increasing friction between the independent board and its owner regarding the brand’s mission and integrity. Over recent years, Mittal indicated that the board has been resisting what she called the “overreach” from Magnum, particularly regarding issues of human rights and social justice advocacy.
Historically, Ben & Jerry’s has always prided itself on its commitment to social issues and its operational independence, especially when it was acquired by Unilever in 2000. The deal allowed Ben & Jerry’s to maintain an independent board while still being part of a larger corporate entity. However, during its ownership, there were several instances of friction, notably in 2021 when Ben & Jerry’s refused to sell its products in Israeli-occupied territories. This decision led Unilever to divest its Israeli operations to a local licensee.
Mittal’s accusations are serious, alleging that Magnum’s executives threatened her with potentially damaging statements unless she resigned. In her own words, she recalled that in October, the executives insinuated that adverse information would be included in their forthcoming prospectus if she did not comply with their demands for her resignation. Moreover, they offered her a prominent role within a multimillion-dollar, Unilever-funded nonprofit as an incentive to step down, an offer she ultimately rejected, calling it “inappropriate.”
As the world’s largest ice cream manufacturer, Magnum oversees a range of brands, including Wall’s and Cornetto. Mittal, who is also the founder of the Oakland Institute—a think tank focused on human rights—has labeled Greenfield’s response to the brand as an orchestrated “public smear campaign.” Responses from the original Ben & Jerry’s founders have also surfaced; co-founder Jerry Greenfield left the company in September, citing concerns regarding the dilution of the company’s social mission under its new ownership.
In defense of its actions, a spokesperson for Magnum stated that the reorganization aims to “strengthen corporate governance” while affirming the board’s responsibilities. The spokesperson stressed the commitment to Ben & Jerry’s foundational mission, describing efforts to protect the integrity of the brand while maintaining an active stance on various social justice issues.
As this situation continues to develop, the tension within Ben & Jerry’s not only underscores the struggles of maintaining operational autonomy in the face of corporate pressures but also highlights the complex interplay between business practices and social responsibilities that modern brands must navigate.
