I sat in a Zoom room Tuesday night with Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s, and 10 other social entrepreneurs from across the country.

He shared why—and how—he’s actively working to buy back Ben & Jerry’s from Magnum Ice Cream Company, even though Magnum states the company isn’t for sale.

This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

What’s at stake isn’t just ownership.
It’s whether the company can still live out the mission it was built on.

As I listened to Ben describe what happened to his company, something became clear very quickly:

This isn’t just a business dispute.

At its core is a much deeper question:

Does Ben & Jerry’s still have the ability—protected in its original acquisition—to steward its social mission and speak publicly on the issues it believes in, even when those positions create tension with its parent company?

The answer matters.

Because this isn’t about governance mechanics.

It’s about who ultimately determines what Ben & Jerry’s stands for.

From who sits on its independent board…
To how and when it uses its voice…
To decisions as concrete as what products make it to market.

And when those decisions shift, the brand itself begins to shift with them.

Ben & Jerry’s was never just an ice cream company.

From the beginning, it was built on a radical idea: that a business could pursue product excellence, economic success, and social justice at the same time—and that none of those should be subordinate to the others.

In 1988, nearly two decades before B Corp certification even existed, they formalized that belief by putting their social mission on equal footing with their product and economic missions.

They didn’t follow a movement.

They helped create one.

That’s why, when they became a Certified B Corp in 2012, they weren’t joining something new. As B Lab co-founder Jay Coen Gilbert put it, it was “awesome to have Ben & Jerry’s join a movement that they inspired.”

Today, their B Impact Score, a measure used by B Lab to verify a company’s social and environmental impact, is 96. The median for ordinary businesses is 50.9.

This is not a fringe example of purpose-driven business.

This is one of the most validated models we have.

When Unilever acquired Ben & Jerry’s in 2000, that distinction was understood.

The agreement wasn’t simply financial. It was philosophical.

Ben & Jerry’s would retain its autonomy through an independent board. It would continue to pursue its social mission. Its activism wasn’t a liability to be managed—it was the brand.

That wasn’t a side clause. That was the deal.

And yet, over several years, that agreement was strained. Cohen alleges Unilever “muzzled” the company’s social mission and removed independent board members before selling it to Magnum Ice Cream, where the mission was further diluted.

According to letters written by the founders to both the board of Magnum Ice Cream Company and prospective investors, the company’s voice has been “silenced,” its commitments “eroded,” and its ability to speak out on issues aligned with its mission constrained—particularly when those positions became politically or commercially uncomfortable.

This isn’t speculation. It’s documented.

There have been multiple lawsuits between the independent board and its parent company. Public actions have been taken. And in a defining moment, Jerry Greenfield, Ben’s co-founder, stepped away from the company he helped build.

At the same time, the “Free Ben & Jerry’s” campaign has emerged, calling for the brand to return to independent ownership under socially aligned investors.

Not to reinvent the company.

To restore it.

Here’s what makes this matter.

Ben & Jerry’s didn’t succeed despite its activism.

It succeeded because of it.

People don’t just buy the product. They buy what the brand represents:

• Its willingness to take a stand

• Its consistency in doing so

• Its refusal to separate business from belief

That is the value, and it’s exactly what’s at risk.

This is where most companies—and most commentary—get it wrong.

They assume that purpose is an enhancement.

Something you layer onto a business once it’s already working.

But in brands like Ben & Jerry’s, purpose is not additive.

It is structural.

Remove it, constrain it, or dilute it, and you are not protecting the business.

You are dismantling the very thing that made it matter.

From a brand strategy perspective, this is a Category of One company.

Its identity is so clearly defined—and so consistently expressed—that it cannot be confused with any competitor.

That kind of brand does not operate like a traditional asset.

It cannot be optimized solely for efficiency.
It cannot be neutralized without consequence.
And it cannot be separated from the beliefs that built it.

And when it is placed inside a system designed to do exactly those things, tension is inevitable.

That’s the tension we’re watching now. Not between people. Between models.

A traditional corporate system, built to manage risk, maximize return, and avoid unnecessary controversy.

And a belief-driven brand, built to take positions, challenge norms, and operate with a broader definition of responsibility.

Both can work.

But they do not work the same way.

This is why the outcome of this situation matters beyond a single company.

If Ben & Jerry’s cannot maintain its mission within this structure, it sends a signal to every founder building a purpose-driven business:

That belief is conditional.
That values can be overridden.
That mission is negotiable when it becomes inconvenient.

But if it can reestablish its independence—and continue operating as it was designed to—it reinforces something equally powerful:

That businesses can scale without surrendering what they stand for.

As someone who has spent more than two decades helping leaders build brands rooted in belief—and as a Certified B Corp leader myself—I don’t see this as abstract.

I see it as a defining moment.

Because the question isn’t whether businesses can be a force for good.

We already know they can.

The question is whether they are allowed to remain that way when it matters most.

Ben Cohen isn’t fighting for control.

He’s fighting for alignment.

For the ability of a company to live in accordance with the values that made it successful in the first place.

And for the idea that those values are not optional.

If you’ve ever believed that business can be a force for something more, this is one of those moments to pay attention.

And, if it aligns, to support the effort to ensure that a brand built on belief is allowed to keep standing on it.

Learn more about the movement at

https://freebenandjerrys.com/

Consider signing the letter to Magnum. Help to #freebenandjerrys

This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.