Jerry Greenfield Quits Ben & Jerry’s After 47 Years

Jerry Greenfield, who co-founded Ben & Jerry’s in 1978 with Ben Cohen, has officially stepped down from the company after nearly five decades. On September 16, 2025, Greenfield issued a public letter, shared via his co-founder, saying that he could no longer remain with the company “in good conscience.”

He described the decision as one of the hardest he has ever made. Greenfield stated that over decades, he had helped build more than an ice-cream business—he believed the company should be a force for social justice, human rights, civil rights, and similar causes.

Why He Left Ben & Jerry’s

The basis for Greenfield’s resignation stems from growing tensions with the parent company, Unilever. Greenfield claims that Unilever has increasingly thwarted Ben & Jerry’s ability to speak out on political and social issues, despite an agreement made when Unilever acquired Ben & Jerry’s in 2000. That agreement had promised the brand would maintain autonomy to pursue its social mission via an independent board. Greenfield says that this autonomy has been eroded.

He specifically called out suppression of activism, including the preventative blocking of public messages, rejecting donations to certain organizations, and curtailing activism tied to issues like voting rights, immigration, the LGBTQ+ community, international human rights, and the conflict in Gaza.

Context: What Has Changed at Ben & Jerry’s?

A recent corporate restructuring is feeding into the dispute. Unilever is in the process of spinning off its ice cream business (including Ben & Jerry’s) into a new entity called The Magnum Ice Cream Company.

Greenfield and Cohen have pushed for Ben & Jerry’s to be “released” — i.e., returned to independent ownership — so the social mission can be restored without what they see as constraints. Unilever has rejected the idea that the brand is for sale. Greenfield claims that some social advocacy efforts have been blocked and that the brand’s voice has been muted.

Statements from Both Sides

Greenfield’s letter expresses love for the company, its employees, its legacy—but also disappointment. He writes that if the brand cannot uphold the values on which it was founded, then staying on is no longer viable. In his words, “It was always about more than just ice cream… a way to spread love and invite others into the fight for equity, justice and a better world.”

Unilever (via The Magnum Ice Cream Company spokesperson) disagrees with Greenfield’s characterization. They claim they remain committed to the company’s product, economic, and social mission. Additionally, they say they have sought to engage Greenfield and Cohen in dialogue and believe there is still room to honor the brand’s values. They express gratitude for Greenfield’s years of work, while rejecting the idea that activism has been fully suppressed.

Why It Resonates & What It Points To

• Corporate ownership vs founders’ values: This case illustrates the tension when a brand known for social activism is owned by a large corporation with broader financial and reputational concerns.
• Autonomy agreements: Acquisition agreements that promise autonomy or social mission protections can become flashpoints if those promises are perceived as broken.
• Public expectations: Consumers increasingly expect brands to behave ethically and engage in public issues. When a brand seems to pull back, there can be reputational risk.
• Potential shift: Greenfield’s exit could prompt pushback, possibly legal or shareholder pressure, to restore activist freedoms or adjust ownership structure.

You might also want to read: Obama Speaks Out After Charlie Kirk’s Assasination