Did Magnum Just Try to Smear Ben & Jerry's Former Chair?

The recent fallout involving Anuradha Mittal, the ousted chair of Ben & Jerry's independent board, highlights a significant conflict between the brand and its new owner, Magnum Ice Cream Company. Mittal alleges that Magnum threatened to launch a public smear campaign against her if she did not resign, raising concerns about the independence of the board and the company's commitment to its social mission.

Last updated: 29 October 2023 (BST)

What’s happening now

The dispute between Ben & Jerry's and Magnum has escalated dramatically, with Mittal's accusations underscoring the tension over the brand's governance and its social mission. After seven years as chair, Mittal claims she was removed from her position following threats from Magnum, which asserted that she "no longer met the criteria to serve" on the board. Magnum's recent changes to board governance, including a nine-year limit for board members, have also drawn scrutiny as they coincide with increasing frustrations over the brand's independence.

Key takeaways

Anuradha Mittal alleges threats of defamation from Magnum if she did not resign.
Magnum has implemented new governance structures, including term limits for board members.
The conflict centres around the brand's independence and social mission.

Timeline: how we got here

Understanding the context of this dispute involves looking back at key events:

2000: Ben & Jerry's is sold to Unilever, maintaining an independent board.
2021: Ben & Jerry's refuses to sell ice cream in Israeli-occupied territories, leading to the sale of its Israeli operation by Unilever.
October 2023: Mittal alleges that Magnum executives threatened to smear her unless she resigned.

What’s new vs what’s known

New today/this week

Mittal has publicly accused Magnum of threatening her with defamatory statements while simultaneously offering her a lucrative position in a non-profit organisation funded by Unilever. This claim introduces a new layer of complexity to the ongoing conflict over governance and social responsibility.

What was already established

It has been previously reported that Ben & Jerry's has faced challenges regarding its social mission under the ownership of Unilever and now Magnum. The brand's stance on social justice issues has historically created friction with its parent companies.

Impact for the UK

Consumers and households

For UK consumers, the ongoing dispute may raise questions about the brand's commitment to its social responsibilities, which could influence purchasing decisions. As Ben & Jerry's is well-known for its activism and progressive values, any perceived shift away from these principles may affect its market appeal.

Businesses and jobs

The changes in governance and the public nature of this dispute could affect employee morale at Ben & Jerry's. If the brand's commitment to its social mission is perceived as compromised, it may struggle to attract talent aligned with its values.

Policy and regulation

As the situation unfolds, regulatory scrutiny may increase, particularly regarding corporate governance practices and the obligations of companies to maintain their stated missions. The response from UK regulators will be crucial in determining the legal and operational ramifications for Magnum and Ben & Jerry's.

Numbers that matter

7 years: Duration of Mittal's tenure as chair of the Ben & Jerry's board.
3 board members, including Mittal, are being required to leave following the investigation.
1 major ice cream brand: Magnum is now the world's largest ice cream maker, which can influence market trends.

Definitions and jargon buster

Ben & Jerry's: An American ice cream company known for its social activism and unique flavour combinations.
Magnum: A brand of ice cream owned by Unilever, now operating independently as Magnum Ice Cream Company.
Unilever: A multinational consumer goods company previously owning Ben & Jerry's.

How to think about the next steps

Near term (0–4 weeks)

In the coming weeks, stakeholders should watch for any further developments regarding Mittal's accusations and Magnum's governance changes. The company's response to these allegations will be crucial in shaping public perception.

Medium term (1–6 months)

As the situation evolves, it will be important to monitor how Magnum's governance changes impact Ben & Jerry's operations. Stakeholder reactions and consumer sentiment will provide insights into the brand's future direction.

Signals to watch

Public statements from both Magnum and Ben & Jerry's regarding governance and social mission.
Consumer feedback and purchasing behaviour trends.
Any regulatory actions or inquiries related to the governance practices of Magnum and Ben & Jerry's.

Practical guidance

Do

Stay informed about developments related to the Ben & Jerry's board and Magnum's governance changes.
Consider the implications of this dispute on the brand's core values when making purchasing decisions.

Don’t

Dismiss the potential impact of corporate governance on social responsibility.
Assume that the brand's current offerings will remain unchanged in terms of social advocacy.

Checklist

Review Ben & Jerry's public communications regarding its social mission.
Assess your own values and how they align with the brands you support.
Monitor news for updates on the ongoing dispute and its ramifications.

Risks, caveats, and uncertainties

The situation remains fluid, with ongoing developments that could significantly alter the current landscape. Any emerging information, particularly regarding the actions of Magnum and the response from Ben & Jerry's, should be approached with caution. The legal implications of Mittal's allegations may also introduce uncertainties that could affect both companies moving forward.

Bottom line

The conflict between Ben & Jerry's and Magnum raises important questions about corporate governance, brand integrity, and social responsibility. As the situation unfolds, stakeholders should remain vigilant about the implications for both the brand's future and the broader ice cream market in the UK.

FAQs

What led to Anuradha Mittal's removal from the Ben & Jerry's board?

Anuradha Mittal's removal from the Ben & Jerry's board was accompanied by allegations from her that Magnum threatened to publicly smear her unless she resigned, highlighting tensions over governance and social mission.

What are Magnum's recent changes to Ben & Jerry's governance?

Magnum has implemented a nine-year term limit for board members and stated that the changes aim to strengthen corporate governance while preserving Ben & Jerry's social mission.

How does this dispute affect consumers in the UK?

This dispute may influence UK consumers' perceptions of Ben & Jerry's commitment to its social mission, potentially impacting purchasing decisions as they weigh the brand's values against its corporate governance changes.