Ben & Jerry’s Chair Ousted as Magnum Accuses Smear Campaign

A major board shake-up at Ben & Jerry's has intensified as Magnum redefines the ice-cream maker's structure. Former independent chair Anuradha Mittal says Magnum threatened to publish defamatory statements unless she stepped down, escalating a long-running debate over the brand's autonomy and social mission.

What triggered the ouster

Mittal, who led the independent Ben & Jerry's board for seven years, says she was notified of her removal after Magnum commissioned an external review. The inquiry identified governance and financial-control concerns at the Ben & Jerry's Foundation, the charity arm linked to the brand.

Board reforms announced

Magnum said it would impose a nine-year term limit for board members and that Mittal along with two other directors would depart. It also noted deficiencies in financial controls and conflicts of interest from the foundation’s audit.

Mittal's account

In an interview, Mittal described rising friction over independence, stating the board should safeguard Ben & Jerry's social mission rather than be drawn into the owner's strategic agenda. She claimed executives threatened defamatory statements in an upcoming prospectus and offered her a prominent, Unilever-funded nonprofit role if she resigned, an offer she refused.

Context and ownership

Ben & Jerry's was founded in Vermont in 1978 and built a reputation for activist stances. It was owned by Unilever since 2000, until this month when the parent spun off the ice-cream unit into Magnum Ice Cream Company, with the board retaining independence in theory but now under Magnum's umbrella. The brand has previously clashed with its owner over social-justice activism, including a 2021 decision not to sell in certain territories and a subsequent stance on solidarity with Palestine.

Magnum's response

A Magnum spokesperson said the governance changes are meant to strengthen oversight and reaffirm the board's responsibilities, aiming to preserve the brand's historical social mission and integrity.

Founders' reactions

One of the brand's co-founders, Jerry Greenfield, left in September, arguing the social mission was being stifled. The other founder, Ben Cohen, has likewise criticized Magnum's suitability to own Ben & Jerry's.

Looking ahead

Analysts see this case as part of a broader debate about how independent a mission-led brand can stay under corporate ownership, and how governance revisions may affect activism and public stance.

Expert comment

Expert view: Governance expert says the case tests whether a mission-led brand can retain true autonomy after an ownership shift. The outcome could influence other activist brands facing similar corporate structures.

Short summary

Mittal's removal follows a governance review linked to Magnum's ownership structure. Magnum argues the changes strengthen governance and protect the brand's social mission, while Mittal and former founders view the move as suppressing advocacy. The episode highlights tension between activism and corporate governance in a high-profile consumer brand.

The case underscores the friction between preserving a social mission and meeting governance demands within a corporate spin-off, a theme likely to shape how activist brands navigate ownership in the future. Source

Discover the latest news and current events in Economics as of 19-12-2025. The article titled " Ben & Jerry’s Chair Ousted as Magnum Accuses Smear Campaign " provides you with the most relevant and reliable information in the Economics field. Each news piece is thoroughly analyzed to deliver valuable insights to our readers.

The information in " Ben & Jerry’s Chair Ousted as Magnum Accuses Smear Campaign " helps you make better-informed decisions within the Economics category. Our news articles are continuously updated and adhere to journalistic standards.