Ben & Jerry’s CEO Fired—What It Means For Activist Food Culture

For over 40 years, Ben & Jerry’s hasn’t just worn its politics on its sleeve—it’s built an entire business around them. While most brands carefully curate their activism to avoid backlash, the Vermont-based ice cream company has been unapologetically about that life. From employee walkouts to viral TikTok takedowns and calls for criminal justice reform, its activism hasn’t been a marketing gimmick—it’s been a core ingredient.

Now, with CEO Dave Stever’s sudden firing and ongoing tensions with Unilever, the brand faces a familiar but heightened question: Can a business built on values keep its identity under corporate rule? Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, the founders who turned ice cream into a vehicle for change, set the groundwork for a brand that leaned into activism while maintaining cultural relevance. But as leadership shifts and corporate oversight becomes more pronounced, does Ben & Jerry’s still have control of its own mission—or is corporate ownership finally catching up to it?

How Ben & Jerry’s Embedded Activism Into Its Brand

Even when flavors didn’t make it to market, the brand’s politically charged approach made headlines—like Eat the Rich, an ice cream concept that never was but became a symbol of consumer fascination with corporate dissent. As I explored in my piece on Eat the Rich: A Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream That Never Was, the idea took on a life of its own, proving that Ben & Jerry’s has mastered the art of sparking cultural conversation—whether a pint makes it to shelves or not.

But in today’s climate, can an activist-driven brand survive when its corporate owner is calling the shots? From day one, Ben & Jerry’s didn’t just sell ice cream—it sold a worldview. On its official company website, the brand states that “we believe in using our business to make the world a better place.” However, unlike most corporations that cherry-pick causes for PR moments, Ben & Jerry’s has institutionalized activism into its business model.

Here’s how they did it:

• Taking Clear, Uncompromising Stances: From climate justice to LGBTQ+ rights, Ben & Jerry’s has never shied away from taking positions on polarizing political issues. Its Issues We Care About page reads more like a grassroots campaign than a corporate mission statement.
• Employee-Led Activism: The brand has encouraged employees to join protests, sign petitions, and speak out, reinforcing that their work isn’t just about scooping ice cream—it’s about advancing change.
• Flavor As Protest: Limited-time releases like Justice ReMix’d and Pecan Resist transformed ice cream into edible activism, funding progressive causes while making a statement.
• Legal Fights & Corporate Accountability: Even after being acquired by Unilever, Ben & Jerry’s has pushed back when its corporate parent’s actions clashed with its mission—most recently suing Unilever to prevent the sale of its ice cream in Israeli settlements.

Why Leadership Matters: The Firing Of CEO Dave Stever

In early 2025, Dave Stever, a 34-year veteran of the company, was removed from his position as CEO of Ben & Jerry’s. His departure wasn’t a quiet exit—it was a direct shakeup by Unilever, signaling a deeper shift in how the brand’s leadership is being handled.

While Unilever has not publicly disclosed a reason for Stever’s firing, it raises critical questions about whether Ben & Jerry’s can maintain its independence as Unilever asserts more control. The lawsuit filed by Ben & Jerry’s board in 2022 against Unilever over product sales in Israeli settlements already exposed the growing tensions between the brand and its corporate owner.

The ice cream company has a unique corporate structure that was meant to protect its activist mission, even after its 2000 sale to Unilever:

• Independent Board of Directors: Unlike most Unilever-owned brands, Ben & Jerry’s has an independent board specifically tasked with preserving the company’s social mission.
• Merger Agreement Protections: The 2000 acquisition agreement required consultation with the board for key leadership decisions, including hiring or firing the CEO.
• Social Mission Oversight: The board exists to prevent the dilution of the company’s activist identity—something thatappears to be under increasing pressure.

Stever’s removal suggests Unilever is making executive decisions without consulting the board, a move that directly contradicts the original terms of Ben & Jerry’s corporate structure.

Can A Corporate-Owned Activist Brand Survive?

The larger issue here isn’t just one leadership change—it’s the fundamental tension between corporate ownership and brand activism. Can an activist-driven company thrive when it’s owned by a global conglomerate?

Ben & Jerry’s is fighting to maintain its identity, but it’s an outlier in an industry where corporate consolidation often leads to diluted values. While Unilever benefits from Ben & Jerry’s brand loyalty, the ongoing friction between the two raises questions about how long an activist-led brand can realistically operate under a corporate parent.

This isn’t just theoretical—Ben & Jerry’s founders have openly discussed buying back the brand from Unilever. As reported by Bloomberg, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield have been exploring ways to regain control of the company to protect its mission.

If that were to happen, it would be a rare case of a brand successfully reclaiming independence from a multinational corporation. But for now, Ben & Jerry’s remains in the middle of a high-stakes battle over what it means to be a corporate activist brand in an era of increasing consumer skepticism.

Why Trust in Corporate Activism Is Failing

This battle isn’t happening in a vacuum. Consumer trust in corporate activism is at an all-time low. The 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer found that:

• Brands that once took strong activist stances are scaling back due to backlash.
• Consumers increasingly distrust businesses that claim to support causes but fail to act.
• 81% of people with a high sense of grievance view businesses as unethical.

In contrast, Ben & Jerry’s has remained consistent for decades—and that’s why it still holds weight. While other companies waver based on public perception, Ben & Jerry’s has never pretended to be neutral. Whether it’s been boycotts, lawsuits, or leadership changes, the brand has remained committed to its values, even when it’s put them at odds with its corporate owner.

What happens next? That’s left to be seen. Will the company allow Ben & Jerry’s to continue operating as a values-driven brand, or will corporate control ultimately reshape its identity?

For now, one thing is clear: Ben & Jerry’s isn’t backing down. And in an era of performative brand activism, that still matters.

MORE FROM FORBES