Hearts & Minds: Purpose vs Parent: the Ben & Jerry’s lesson

It was always going to happen. That Unilever’s acquisition of Ben & Jerry’s would prompt the departure of the ice cream’s socially and politically activist co-founders, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield. So, the quitting of Greenfield is not a surprise. Except, Unilever bought the brand 25 years ago. It has lasted that long, so perhaps not bound to occur after all – indeed, a quarter of a century is a pretty good duration for any partnership.

There were tensions during that period, which led to lawsuits and media criticism. But they carried on. Now, finally, Greenfield has gone, complaining Ben & Jerry’s can no longer pursue its ideals. This, despite an agreement intended to enshrine its independence.

We’ve been here before - L’Oréal taking over Anita Roddick’s Body Shop, Coca-Cola buying Innocent, are just two examples. A name that has made principle and purpose its USP is accused of selling out, disappointing consumers who are as much followers as customers. It’s a fine comms balance, maintaining the image of one side without harming the other, not upsetting the respective stakeholders. Today’s polarised world and social media exacerbate an already difficult situation.

Recognition and separation must be the watchwords. Recognition, as to how the brand has got here, what it’s known for; separation, in that it must be allowed to continue or else its identity diminishes. Structures such as cut-offs and advisory boards can be put in place to provide some sort of independence. But there will be awkwardness – the late Roddick liked to portray herself as a ‘Trojan Horse’, proclaiming she would change L’Oréal from within, which did not help. It’s no use pretending the match is perfect; like any difficult marriage, acceptance of co-existence, of mutual respect, is essential if divorce is to be avoided.

The media, naturally, love to poke and find holes, and they will be found. Best to ride over them, to not get worked up, to accept this is what makes the partner so unique – it’s what they do, we get that. Generally, that is the case. But then they may do something that runs entirely counter and catapults the divide to another level. It risks damaging the whole edifice and cannot be ignored. In that situation, the messaging should be one of firmness and reasonableness. It may spark protests and a walk-out but so would doing nothing at all and that would be far worse. 

Chris Blackhurst is one of the UK’s foremost business journalists. He was previously Editor of The Independent and City Editor of the Evening Standard.