Setting Standards or Making Profit?: On ‘Ethical’ Companies

Staff Writer Hania Ahmed examines corporate reputation laundering in the context of the recent furore surrounding popular ice-cream chain Ben & Jerry’s.

On 17 September 2025, Ben & Jerry’s co-founder Jerry Greenfield resigned accusing parent company Unilever of censorship. Ben & Jerry’s was widely known for progressive messaging and liberal attitudes. The company typified a wave of ‘ethical’ companies providing an alternative to traditional multinationals, with consumers placing their hopes on these companies to operate with progressive politics. However, despite their purported ethics, the same goal remains: attaining the largest profit margin possible at the cost of any real actioning of ethical messaging.

In recent years, many multinationals have taken moral ‘hits’ surrounding their involvement in unfair wages and working conditions. This comes at a time when more companies than ever are focusing on riding the ‘wokeness’ wave. Diversity initiatives and public statements of support on political issues are now unsurprising, even coming from companies such as Boohoo or Amazon who have made headlines over accusations of wage theft. Initiatives spearheaded by these companies include donations to charities and changing their logo to rainbow colours during Pride Month.

Despite appearances, these initiatives do little to change the tangible effects of underpayment or workplace discrimination that take place on the ground. These initiatives are an example of ‘virtue-signalling’—where a company launders reputation through low-stakes public repetition of their sociopolitical position, without any financial or policy change to support it. Consumers, whether consciously or not, are sucked into the progressive messaging of these multinational corporations. A one-off donation does not decrease the harm of these companies, nor does it undo years of employee abuses. Yet, consumers celebrate when companies check off their diversity quota, as if it really benefits us and not just the company itself. 

At the forefront of these seemingly ‘ethical companies’ is Ben & Jerry’s, a worldwide ice-cream company founded in Vermont in 1978 which recently made headlines with co-founder Jerry Greenfield’s resignation.

Ben & Jerry’s Ice-Cream Activism

In the past, Ben & Jerrys worked with the WWF to educate young people on climate change, encouraged people to email their MPs in Australia to legalise same-sex marriage and created a new flavour called ‘Pecan Resist’ to oppose Donald Trump’s conservative party policies in 2018. They are no stranger to taking open stances on political issues.

In 2000, the company expanded and was acquired by Unilever. In the acquisition agreement, Unilever stated that they would ensure Ben & Jerry’s independence to continue promoting their values surrounding “these critical, global economic and social missions”. The acquisition nevertheless raised questions over Ben & Jerry’s ‘ethical’ image. Unilever is the parent company of other popular brands, including Surf, Vaseline and Dove. Accusations of unethical practice against this conglomerate are not hard to come by: continued operations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Russia (post-war in Ukraine) to human rights abuses within its supply chains. If Cohen and Greenfield’s goal was social activism, it was undermined when they signed the acquisition deal for profit.

Perhaps Ben & Jerry’s moral image was already in decline. After the resignation of co-founder Ben Cohen as CEO in 1994, the brand ended its ‘five-to-one’ ratio policy: where the CEO would be paid no more than five times the wage of an entry level employee. This shows a lack of commitment to the social causes they claim to champion, even before the acquisition by Unilever.

Neither Greenfield nor Cohen have held an official position at Ben & Jerry’s for many years, though last week they released a public statement addressing Unilever, asking for the Ben & Jerry’s brand to be allowed to operate independently as a spin off. However, Unilever responded that the company is ‘a proud part’ of its subsidiary, Magnum Ice Cream Company, and that it ‘is not for sale’. 

When Greenfield left the company, he accused Unilever of preventing both himself and Cohen from speaking out over First Amendment rights for student protestors, calling for a ceasefire in Gaza and providing a statement of support for Palestinian refugees. The Ben & Jerry’s board further claims that Unilever blocked their donations to Jewish Voice for Peace, a Jewish organisation critical of Israel’s occupation of Palestine. 

Ben & Jerry’s announced plans to end sales in the Occupied Palestinian Territories in 2021, as they were deemed illegal settlements under international law. However, in 2022, Unilever sold Ben & Jerry’s Israel franchise to American Quality Products, a separate parent company. Co-founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield were open about their disagreement with Unilever’s decision: “We continue to believe it is inconsistent with Ben & Jerry’s values for our ice cream to be sold in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”

Only within the last five years has the Ben & Jerry’s brand chosen to speak up on human rights abuses against Palestinians in Israel. Yet, these atrocities have been ongoing long before the company was founded. The IDF has been widely criticised for its attacks on civilians for decades. The ‘Nakba’ in 1948 created up to 750,000 Palestinian refugees. Unilever has a subsidiary in Israel, Unilever Israel, and has invested over £200 million into Israel over the last ten years.

Cohen and Greenfield have profited secondhand from this expansion into Palestinian territory and the war conducted against Palestinians. For a company that prides itself on progressive politics and liberal messaging, these controversies are at odds with Ben and Jerry’s image. Their progressively labelled ice-cream may be just that—messaging with no further political or social commitment.

Ben & Jerry’s was already on the ‘BDS’ (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) list for its association with Unilever and Israel. In this regard, Greenfield’s resignation can be framed as too little, too late. Almost two years into the Israel-Gaza war, with the deaths of over 65,000 Palestinians, Greenfield’s departure rings of virtue-signalling. It’s a lot easier to take the moral high ground when you’ve profited massively for 25 years off of exploitation.

These are not new accusations. Flavours created to raise awareness and encourage political action have been seen as a way for the company to profit off of progressive values, while taking money from large conglomerates with human rights abuses throughout its companies. Pop-culture signage about war and social media messaging about acknowledging the ‘stolen land’ of the United States doesn’t create any meaningful change for Native Americans living on the poverty line. 

Unilever has responded to Jerry Greenfield’s public resignation message: “We disagree with his perspective and have sought to engage both co-founders in a constructive conversation on how to strengthen Ben & Jerry’s powerful values-based position in the world.” 

The question remains, when will we stop relying on companies who profit off of exploitation to show up for us?

For more in-depth political analysis, click here.