Ben & Jerry’s and its parent company Unilever have an unusual acquisition agreement that allowed the famously liberal company to stop selling ice cream in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, even though it has created tension between the two parties.
Unilever, a London-based multinational corporation, acquired Vermont-based Ben & Jerry’s in 2000 in a $326 million deal. It included an agreement that an “external board” would be created to oversee Ben & Jerry’s social mission. That board was vested with the authority to push back against Unilever.
On Monday, the company generated waves when it released a statement: “We believe it is inconsistent with our values for Ben & Jerry’s ice cream to be sold in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT). We also hear and recognize the concerns shared with us by our fans and trusted partners.”
The statement also added that it has a licensing agreement with an Israeli franchisee but is not looking to renew that when it expires next year. It went on to say that while the ice cream won’t be sold in the contested areas, Ben & Jerry’s will “stay in Israel through a different arrangement.”
ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER WARNS OF ‘SEVERE CONSEQUENCES, INCLUDING LEGAL,’ FOR BEN & JERRY’S
Unilever then released its own statement that noted the complexity of the geopolitical situation in the Levant and emphasized that the corporation remains “fully committed to our presence in Israel, where we have invested in our people, brands and business for several decades.”
Unilever highlighted the terms of the 2000 agreement and said it has always recognized the right of the brand and its independent board to handle the ice cream company’s social mission. “We also welcome the fact that Ben & Jerry’s will stay in Israel,” it added.
But the independent board’s chairwoman, Anuradha Mittal, told NBC News that Ben & Jerry’s had intended to put out a different statement than the one issued, one that made no reference to the continued ice cream sales in Israel at all. She said Unilever broke the terms of the 2000 agreement by publishing the statement without the independent board’s approval.
“I am saddened by the deceit of it,” Mittal said. “This is not about Israel. It is about the violation of the acquisition agreement that maintained the soul of the company. I can’t stop thinking that this is what happens when you have a board with all women and people of color who have been pushing to do the right thing.”
Mittal described the acquisition agreement as “amazingly unique” in that it “ties the hands” of Ben & Jerry’s chief executive officer and Unilever.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
After the controversial move to nix sales in the disputed territories, Unilever received pushback from Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, who spoke with the head of the conglomerate after the decision. Bennett told Unilever CEO Alan Jope that he takes a “very serious view of the decision by Ben & Jerry’s to boycott Israel.” He characterized the move as a “clearly anti-Israeli step.”
The Washington Examiner contacted both Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever for comment about the decision but didn’t receive responses.
