Partings ought to be sweet – like a scoop of Ben & Jerry’s, one of the most popular ice cream brands in the United States of America. But that was, ironically, not quite the case when Jerry Greenfield, the co-founder of the ice cream brand and the Jerry in Ben & Jerry’s, decided to part ways with the company that he was associated with for over four decades. In a public note, Mr Greenfield has stated that he could no longer be an employee — he was a brand ambassador at the firm — “in good conscience”, suggesting — alleging, in other words — that Ben & Jerry's was being prevented by “those in power” from “standing up for values like justice, equity, and shared humanity”. There can be no doubt about the identity of the ‘oppressor’ — Mr Greenfield’s finger was pointed at Unilever.

In 2000, Unilever inked a deal worth $326 million to buy Ben & Jerry’s, something that did not apparently please Mr Greenfield. As part of the deal, the ice cream brand was permitted to create its own independent social mission board to enable it to pursue causes, political or otherwise, that are consistent with the company’s core values. The clause may be surprising in the world of business that usually shies away from taking political — progressive — positions. But it was entirely consistent with Ben & Jerry’s history: its first store had opened in Vermont with a mission to “advance human rights and dignity”. The company began donating almost 8% of its annual pre-tax profits to charity since 1985; one of its flavours, projecting the firm’s character of being cool with a conscience, was even named Cherry Garcia, after the Grateful Dead’s guitarist, Jerry Garcia. In recent times, Ben & Jerry’s has been one of the few American companies to speak out against Donald Trump’s contentious immigration policy and has described the conflict in Gaza as “genocide”. If Mr Greenfield’s allegations against Unilever hold, the latter would stand guilty of violating the tenets of a legal compact. Incidentally, the fraught ties between Unilever and Ben & Jerry’s have a precedent. In 2021, the ice-cream maker decided to stop sales in Israel-occupied West Bank but Unilever went on to sell its Israel operations to a local licensee.

The meltdown between Mr Greenfield and Unilever can also be viewed through a philosophical prism. What is, indeed can there be, a right time for the owner of a business to walk away from it? Mr Greenfield’s timing could be interpreted as particularly unfortunate for the global liberal constituency. At a deeply polarised time when free speech seems to be under threat in the US — Microsoft has fired workers for protesting against the company’s ties with Israel and Mr Trump is on record stating that television broadcasters should lose their licences for critical coverage — dissenting opinion from the co-founder of a leading brand is of critical importance.

Despite ‘Jerry’ sending himself to the proverbial deep freeze, his legacy, that of a brand seamlessly fusing its identity and business choices with a set of progressive values, is likely to leave a sweet aftertaste. Just like Ben & Jerry’s.