ben and jerry's original business plan

• food and drink
• Ben & Jerry’s Is Turning 40. Here’s How They Captured a Trend That Changed American Ice Cream

Ben & Jerry’s Is Turning 40. Here’s How They Captured a Trend That Changed American Ice Cream

F orty years ago, when Ben & Jerry’s opened for their first day on May 5, 1978, the ice cream scene in the United States didn’t look quite like it does today.

In fact, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, who had grown up together on Long Island, N.Y., were at the forefront of a superpremium ice cream trend that was still small but gaining steam. And, though they seemed to have stumbled onto ice cream by accident, their timing was remarkable. In the years that followed, they and their fellows would change the taste of American ice cream.

The market for superpremium ice cream — which often uses natural ingredients, has less air churned in (making the ice cream more dense) and has higher butterfat content — was at the time led by Häagen-Dazs, which was already a leader in the field, having started in 1961 and opened their first scoop shop in 1976.

But leading the luxury ice creams wasn’t leading the whole market, as TIME wrote in a 1981 cover story about ice cream . In 1980, Häagen-Dazs produced 40 million pints (about 5 million gallons), which was just a small fraction of the total American production of more than 829 million gallons of ice cream. Stats from 1979 also gave some context: in a $1.6 billion industry, the single biggest market share went to Dart & Kraft (maker of Sealtest and Breyers) at 12.2%, followed by Borden’s 9.3%. Lever Bros. (Good Humor) was Number 7 with 2.3% of the market. Put together, the most expensive brands of ice creams only comprised a total 11% of the market.

But those better-tasting, more costly brands were gaining ground : though ice cream sales overall had increased only 1% in a year, the luxury sector had increased 17%.

Cohen and Greenfield initially weren’t planning to become major leaders in superpremium ice cream. But Cohen wasn’t having much luck selling his pottery and Greenfield had been rejected by medical schools, so they agreed to open some kind of store together. They incorporated their business in 1977, initially thinking of opening a bagel shop. When the machinery costs for bagels were too high, they instead invested in a $5 course in ice cream making at Penn State (famously attended by ice cream makers of all sizes). With $4,000 from each — including help from Cohen’s father, who paid half his share — and another $4,000 from a bank loan, they got to work converting a gas station in Burlington to suit their needs.

Both were 27 years old when they opened in May 1978, at the start of the summer season. But, because Vermont isn’t always weather-suited to frozen dessert shops, Ben also made crêpes , soups and other food while Jerry was in charge of the ice cream. In 1979 they dropped the other food—the ice cream was a success, the crêpes not so much.

From the start they were focused on intensely flavored, chunky and creative ice creams, because, as Cohen told the New York Times in 1994, “I’ve never had a very good sense of smell, and if you don’t have that, you don’t have a good sense of taste. When we began, the game was for Jerry to make a flavor I could taste with my eyes closed. To do that he had to make ice creams that were intensely flavored.” Not all of their early ice creams were successful, as Cohen told LIFE in 1987: “We tried and failed with our first batch of Rum Raisin in 1977. It was rubbery. You put a spoon in it and the spoon pulled back.” But they managed to fix that problem.

TIME opened that 1981 ice cream cover story like so: “What you must understand at the outset is that Ben & Jerry’s, in Burlington, Vt., makes the best ice cream in the world.” Ben & Jerry’s didn’t hesitate to push that marketing hit, though TIME went on to deliver equal superlatives to a handful of other ice cream scoopers. “Ice cream is our drug of choice, and butterfat—the word itself is dizzyingly lovely and globulous—is the occasion of our guiltiest and most delicious sin,” the story also declared.

Ben & Jerry’s also had an extra distinguishing factor. Where Häagen-Dazs’s faux-Scandinavian name added to their high-end image, as TIME noted in 1985 , Cohen and Greenfield “tried to create an image of simple-down home wholesomeness.” That image went right down to the picture on the cartons, showing “a picture of the two bespectacled, bushy-haired owners, who look like refugees from a ’60s commune.” And it was working, the story explained:

Only seven years ago, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield were struggling entrepreneurs who sold ice cream in a single-scoop shop that they had opened in a renovated gas station in Burlington, Vt. Now Cohen and Greenfield, both 34, distribute their unusual flavors, including mint with Oreo cookies and Heath Bar crunch, throughout the Northeast, from Maine to Maryland, and to selected stores in Indiana, Tennessee and Colorado. Sales in the first half of 1985 reached $3.6 million, twice the pace of last year. Ben & Jerry‘s is getting fat on America’s growing appetite for so-called super-premium ice cream, brands made with natural ingredients and plenty of butterfat. Häagen-Dazs, the ice cream that has the pseudo-Scandinavian name but is made in America by Pillsbury, pioneered the superpremium field and spawned such imitators as Frusen Glädjé from Dart & Kraft and Alpen Zauber, which is produced by a small Brooklyn company. Americans last year gobbled an estimated 66 million gal. of superpremium ice cream, up about 12% from 1983.

For years they kept the top salary at their company no more than five times larger than the lowest paid worker’s salary. (Their highest salary is now somewhere between 11 and 15 time the lowest full-time employee’s, according to a 2017 B-corp assessment.)

Expanding from their scoop shop to wholesale deliveries in 1979, the pair quickly brought their frosty wares to the northeast and soon enough across the U.S. By 1987 they had a $30 million empire, with Ben and Jerry’s ice cream in 35 states, and in 1994 — the year Cohen stepped down as CEO — they hit $150 million.

Today the market is changing again. Though rich, indulgent superpremium ice creams are still top sellers, consumers are also looking for “healthier” desserts. Last summer, low-calorie Halo Top beat both Ben & Jerry’s and Häagen-Dazs as top seller among grocery store pints of ice cream.

More Must-Reads from TIME

• The Reinvention of J.D. Vance
• Iran, Trump, and the Third Assassination Plot
• Welcome to the Golden Age of Scams
• Did the Pandemic Break Our Brains?
• 33 True Crime Documentaries That Shaped the Genre
• The Ordained Rabbi Who Bought a Porn Company
• Introducing the Democracy Defenders
• Why Gut Health Issues Are More Common in Women

Contact us at [email protected]

The business model of Ben & Jerry's.

Have you ever wondered why enjoying a scoop of Ben & Jerry’s feels like being part of something bigger? Well, that’s because you are getting a taste of a brand that is not only about big flavors but just as much about big values and an even bigger impact. Every bite of Ben & Jerry’s comes with a scoopful of social justice, a swirl of environmental care, and a burst of creative genius, all mixed into one. What once started as a fun idea at a tiny gas station in Vermont, has by now become a worldwide sensation that continues to inspire millions of people – with its ice cream and its impactful business model. Do you want to know how Ben & Jerry’s uses ice cream to change the world? Let’s dig into their story and explore what keeps the ice cream machines churning.

Becoming a worldwide force for good.

Ben & Jerry’s’ story began in 1978 when two friends, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, turned a small gas station in Burlington, Vermont, into the first Ben & Jerry’s scoop shop. With a $12,000 investment, they ventured on a mission to create extraordinary ice cream flavors. They only used fresh, locally sourced cream and milk, as well as the best and biggest chunks of nuts, fruits and cookies they could find. They combined their innovative approach to flavors, such as Cherry Garcia and Chunky Monkey, with a mission to make the world a better place. The stage was set for them to become a brand conscious of its social and environmental impact, with a loyal following.

"We love making ice cream – but using our business to make the world a better place gives our work its meaning."

- ben & jerry's, rocky roads to success..

The road to success was paved with bold flavors and even bolder actions. In 1984, Ben & Jerry’s faced a significant challenge when Pillsbury, the parent company of Häagen-Dazs, tried to restrict their distribution. Ben & Jerry’s response? The cheeky “ What’s the Doughboy Afraid Of? ” campaign that sparked an outrage among the many members of their community. The campaign got them national attention and eventually led to Pillsbury backing off.

Ben & Jerry’s was not going to get sidetracked. They were determined to become a force for good. That is how they got noticed by Unilever, the British-Dutch multinational in consumer goods. With brands such as Axe, Dove and Lipton, Ben & Jerry’s was not one they could pass up on. Ben & Jerry’s became their first acquisition with a purpose, amounting to $326 million. They made sure the deal would stay true to Ben & Jerry’s social mission, brand integrity and independence, and allowed Ben & Jerry’s to continue their commitment to community values and keep donating a percentage of their profits to social causes. The acquisition also provided Ben & Jerry’s with plenty of opportunity for international expansion and with that a significant impact in their market segment of premium ice cream brands.

A swirl of impact in every pint.

Until today, Ben & Jerry’s has maintained its core values and continues to innovate and advocate for change. With a vibrant presence in over 38 countries, Ben & Jerry's remains committed to its founding principles of equity, sustainability, and community support, all while delighting fans with flavors that are as unique and outspoken as their social mission. Their business model shows their commitment to generate a solid ‘triple bottom line’ and considers all three pillars of corporate sustainability: people, planet and profit, balancing economic success with social and environmental responsibility. Ben & Jerry’s owns this approach and made it theirs. Now let’s see what exactly they are doing to drive impact worldwide.

Want to know how you can create impact?

Our impact playbook will show you, soft bites fighting hard for global social rights..

Ben & Jerry’s has become a voice of the people. They believe everyone deserves respect and full and equal civil rights. They feel connected to the people they create value for, and the people they deliver value with, while at the same time being conscious of the impact they have – both positive and negative – on their surroundings. Their advocacy shines through in their decisive stances on social issues, such as the movement against white supremacy following the tragic George Floyd murder and their Justice Remix’d campaign  aimed at the criminal justice system. Beyond their engagement regarding racial injustices, Ben & Jerry’s supports a wide range of advocacy issues including refugee rights, LGBTQ+ rights, finance reform, just to name a few. Ben and Jerry’s is not afraid to speak up and even has a separate marketing and activism team dedicated to supporting these initiatives.

Eco-friendly practices in every print.

Now, let’s shift the focus from people to planet. Ben & Jerry is deeply committed to environmental sustainability and incorporates eco-friendly practices across its operations. They have set ambitious climate targets. By 2025 they aim to transition to 100% renewable energy and reduce their emission s intensity by 40% --and even to 80% by 2050. In packaging, they have taken a bold step by joining the Pack4Good initiative, led by Canopy, which focuses on transforming the global paper packaging supply chain to prevent exploitation of the world’s forests. This commitment involves reducing the amount of material used through design innovation, maximized use of recycled and alternative fibers, and ensuring all paper packaging is Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified.

Ready to give your strategy a swirl?

Let’s top up your mission with impact., sustaina-bowl treats: good for you and farmers too..

And finally, we have come to the sweetest part of the Ben & Jerry’s business model where social and environmental advocacy meet innovation: their delicious, chunky ice cream. Since 2006, Ben & Jerry’s has partnered with  to source key ingredients such as cocoa, sugar and vanilla from certified Fairtrade producers only. By choosing Fairtrade, Ben & Jerry's ensures that farmers across the globe receive a fair pay so they can earn a living wage and improve their communities. This approach helps reduce economic disparities and supports local economies, ensuring that the people who grow our food can thrive and sustain their livelihoods.

Aside from being conscious about ethically sourcing their ingredients and their supply chain, Ben & Jerry’s continues to push the boundaries of traditional ice cream making. They experiment with unique ingredient combinations and develop products that cater to a wide range of dietary preferences, including dairy-free and vegan options. This inclusive approach ensures that more people can enjoy their ice cream, regardless of dietary restrictions.

Silly names with serious goals.

When it comes to naming their flavors, Ben & Jerry's takes a creative and conscious approach that goes beyond catchy names. Have you ever heard of “Home Sweet Honeycomb”, “Wavy Gravy” or “Chubby Hubby”? Each name reflects the brand's quirky personality and their commitment to not only taste good but do good. For example, in 2015 Ben & Jerry’s introduced “ Save Our Swirled ” as part of a climate change awareness campaign, inspiring over 300,000 fans to join the movement and take action. With their unique names they aim to engage consumers and spread awareness about important issues, all while enjoying a pint of ice cream. It's a fun and flavourful way to make a statement, showing that what we choose to indulge in can also reflect our values and willingness to contribute to a better world.

Check out it's business model canvas:

Did you know that ben & jerry's offers 98 flavours of ice cream worldwide., the final scoop..

We could debate for days about which Ben & Jerry’s flavor is the best, “Chocolate Fudge Brownie”, “Cookie Dough S’wich Up”? or the iconic “Chunky Monkey”. One thing is certain, Ben & Jerry’s knows how to blend pleasure with purpose. Through their commitment to environmental sustainability, social justice, and community engagement, Ben & Jerry’s shows us how business can be a force for good and proves that success can be both sweet and meaningful.

Our 3 tasty takeaways from Ben & Jerry's story:

1.  Champion social cause: Make a difference by supporting social and environmental initiatives that match your brand values. This could mean partnering with nonprofits, advocating for change, or dedicating a portion of profits to causes you firmly believe in.

2. Prioritise sustainable practices: Look at how you source ingredients or materials and for ways to minimise your environmental impact. Using Fairtrade ingredients, for instance, or eco-friendly packaging can really set you apart and will appeal to eco-conscious consumers.

3. Engage your audience with meaning: Use creative product naming or campaigns to highlight important issues. This not only draws attention to the causes you care about but also involves your customers in your mission, creating a deeper brand connection.

Don’t let your good intentions melt, get started with impact today! Not sure how? Whip your brand into shape with our impact playbook.

Ready to scoop up some change, meet roland. he’s ready to sprinkle the world with impact..

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

This Day In History : May 5

Changing the day will navigate the page to that given day in history. You can navigate days by using left and right arrows

Ben & Jerry’s opens its first ice cream shop

On May 5, 1978, area residents line up outside a renovated gas station in Burlington, Vermont, for the grand opening of Ben & Jerry’s Homemade . Opened by childhood friends Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, the store sells soups, crêpes and pottery, but it is their homemade ice cream, made with locally sourced cream and butterfat and flavorful chunks of nuts, cookies, fruit and candy, that become the main attraction.

Ben & Jerry’s ice cream would go on to become a worldwide phenomenon, expanding the market for super premium ice cream made with natural ingredients and extra butterfat. Häagen-Dazs had already carved out a significant niche in this market, but Ben & Jerry’s brought renewed attention, attracting customers with its folksy image, fun mix of ingredients and imaginative flavor names like Chubby Hubby, Cherry Garcia and Wavy Gravy.

The ice cream’s origins can be traced back to a seventh-grade gym class in Merrick, Long Island in 1963, where Cohen and Greenfield became fast friends. By the time they were in their 20s, they were brainstorming business ideas. After scrapping a plan to open a bagel shop (the equipment was too expensive), Cohen and Greenfield decided to take a $5 correspondence course on ice cream making at the Pennsylvania State University’s Creamery . They then each invested $4,000 and took out a bank loan for another $4,000 to open the Burlington store.

Less than two years later, the duo started selling pints of ice cream in grocery stores. While many of the original flavors have not survived (retired flavors are buried in the Ben & Jerry’s Flavor Graveyard ), many new ones followed, including Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough in 1984, the company’s most popular flavor worldwide.

As much as Ben & Jerry’s became known for its ice cream, it also became known for its activism. The company supports a number of issues, including sustainability, racial equity and social and environmental justice.

And when the company agreed to be bought by consumer giant Unilever for a reported $326 million in 2000,there were caveats to the deal, including the appointment of an independent board of directors to protect Ben & Jerry’s “brand equity and integrity.”

Another Ben & Jerry’s tradition that was preserved: Free Cone Day. Every spring, Ben & Jerry’s celebrates the anniversary of its first store opening by serving up roughly 1 million free scoops.

Who Invented Ice Cream?

The origins of ice cream, sorbet and other chilled dairy treats are difficult to pin down—but span back to antiquity.

Why Ice Cream Soared in Popularity During Prohibition

No beer? No problem. Better refrigeration, together with innovations in making and selling frozen treats, helped steer people toward this 'refreshing and palatable food.'

Also on This Day in History May | 5

Martha Jones becomes first Black woman to receive a U.S. patent

Cy young pitches first perfect game in mlb history, chanel no. 5 perfume launches.

This Day in History Video: What Happened on May 5

“spider‑man” becomes first movie to top $100 million in opening weekend, napoleon dies in exile.

Wake Up to This Day in History

Sign up now to learn about This Day in History straight from your inbox. Get all of today's events in just one email featuring a range of topics.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Outnumbered Mexican army defeats French at Battle of Puebla

Six killed in oregon by japanese bomb, ira militant bobby sands dies, alan shepard becomes the first american in space, the examiner publishes john keats’ first poem, human remains found in suitcase near virginia beach, british murder trial begins, the first to be solved by fingerprint evidence, allies end occupation of west germany, italian delegates announce return to paris peace conference.

A business journal from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania

How Ben & Jerry’s Got Bought Out Without Selling Out

January 15, 2016 • 14 min read.

Despite being bought out by Unilever in 2000, Ben & Jerry's has managed to keep intact the commitment to social justice that was baked into the firm by its founders.

When people hear the name “Ben and Jerry’s,” they think of three things: First, the high-quality ice cream, heavy on the mix-ins and the butterfat; second, the pun-riddled names of flavors such as Cherry Garcia, Karamel Sutra or Americone Dream; and third, the company’s longstanding social, environmental and corporate justice missions.

But when co-founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield agreed to sell the business in 2000 to Unilever, a multinational food giant, plenty of people expected that those missions wouldn’t survive. To a remarkable degree, they were mistaken.

In a recent interview with Katherine Klein, vice dean of the Wharton Social Impact Initiative, current Ben & Jerry’s CEO Jostein Solheim talked about how the ice cream company has managed to hold onto its original social missions, despite its absorption by Unilever.

An edited transcript of the conversation appears below.

Katherine Klein: We’re here to talk about the social mission of the company and how you have maintained it even as Ben & Jerry’s has become part of Unilever.

Jostein Solheim: Ben & Jerry’s is now 36 years old as a mission-led company. I think the key thing in the whole transition to one shareholder from multiple shareholders was a governance structure that was put in place. Unilever was very visionary in recognizing that it says “Ben & Jerry” on the packaging. If Ben and Jerry go out and say, “Well, this is all not really true anymore and [social justice is] not a mission of the company anymore,” that would really undermine the value of the acquisition.

Klein: So Unilever acquired Ben & Jerry’s in 2000, and this was a company where the social mission was baked into the brand.

Solheim: That is integral to how we do business.

Klein: And Unilever saw this and its investors saw this from the beginning, and saw value?

Solheim: Yes. That’s why they and the then-sitting board together agreed to set up an independent board of directors that acts basically like our benefit corporation director. They are responsible for the social mission, for the integrity of the Ben & Jerry’s brand, our policies. They even get involved in basic things like wage-setting in the factories, where we have a livable wage policy that is overseen by the board of directors. And the directors are self-selecting. Unilever appoints just two seats out of 11 board members.

Klein: Fascinating. And so unusual.

Solheim: Very.

Klein: You had a career in ice cream at Unilever before coming on five years ago as CEO of Ben & Jerry’s. How was the transition from the larger entity of Unilever to this interestingly different mission-driven company?

“It’s very hard to be angry and eat ice cream at the same time. It’s very tempting to stop and sign a petition, if there’s free ice cream.”

Solheim: I don’t know whether that transition was tougher for them or for me. But Unilever as a company is very aligned in its values. It actually has a lot of diversity in it in terms of management styles, personalities. It has a history of quite a lot of autonomy in its senior leaders, so it wasn’t a super stark contrast. You know, I worked in Italy, I worked in Sweden — the culture of Ben & Jerry’s is actually similar to typical Scandinavian companies. It’s a flat, un-hierarchical sort of approach to business. The biggest thing for me was I felt a big sense of responsibility.

Klein: Have Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield stayed involved?

Solheim: Yeah, they are involved, but they do more of their own things. They have the best jobs in the world. Their job is to be Ben and to be Jerry, and they basically just have to deliver on that. Day-to-day operations are really in the hands of the management team and the board of directors.

Klein: Ben & Jerry’s describes itself as a values-driven company. You celebrate your social, environmental governance values on the website. Can you tell us how that plays out in action? How do you move from words to deeds?

Solheim: Well, I think that’s the key point. A lot of companies would say they’re consumer-led, whether that’s in product development or in a mission. Similarly, when companies come to the world of corporate social responsibility, they ask themselves, ‘What do people really care about? And how can we be a part of that?’ At Ben & Jerry’s, we come at it the other way. We actually ask ourselves, ‘What do we truly believe in — us?’ And then we execute well, because we truly believe in it, and hence, convince others to join us. So that’s what we mean by that: It starts with our values, and then we apply and join in movements with other partners to make change.

Klein: So talk to us about some of those specific values and how they are enacted through your products, through your employment practices and partnerships.

Solheim: We can take one we just won. Let’s take same-sex marriage. That came on the agenda in the 1980s at Ben & Jerry’s. Ben & Jerry’s was one of the first companies to offer same-sex partners the same rights — health care, etc.

When that started to come into the public domain and become a debate, it was very clear for the company — we couldn’t just say, “You’re OK if you’re at Ben & Jerry’s, but if you’re not, you’re not.” So it was very natural for the employees to join in and campaign for same-sex marriage. Then, as we grew bigger, we scaled that campaign up. And now, we finished in the U.S. with the Supreme Court decision this year.

We also won in Ireland. We put it on the map in Australia, in France — in multiple countries where this comes up. It’s something that we believe in. We don’t do an assessment if this position is popular or unpopular. When we started a same-sex marriage campaign in Australia, not a single political party there supported same-sex marriage. Everybody came to us, saying “What are you doing? You shouldn’t do this.” Well, sorry, this is something we really believe in.

Klein: You’ve had individual employees involved in these campaigns. But Ben & Jerry’s as a company, is it active as a major donor, or leading campaigns?

Solheim: The amazing thing is that selling ice cream and running campaigns [use] the same set of skills. You want to get people’s attention, you need social media, you need events. And one great thing that we have, of course, is ice cream. It’s very hard to be angry and eat ice cream at the same time. It’s very tempting to stop and sign a petition, if there’s free ice cream. So ice cream plays a really important role in how we connect with our fans.

We treat those campaigns in exactly the same way as we would treat a new product launch.

Klein: And sometimes they actually appear on your products, right?

Solheim: “I Dough, I Dough” was our celebration of the same-sex marriage act.

We just launched a product, “Save Our Swirled,” which is in support of a binding climate agreement in Paris, where the U.N. [held talks]. We launched that with Tesla out on the West Coast. And then, we launched a European version in Bonn … inside the climate negotiations at the U.N. So we had the opportunity to feed all those people who are trying to work this out for us.

“We have a livable wage policy that is overseen by the board of directors.”

Klein: You actually use ice cream as a metaphor for global warming, right?

Solheim: Correct. We show what ice cream looks like if it’s just two degrees warmer. It’s a bit of a mess.

Klein: It’s a fabulous metaphor: This is what happens to your ice cream after two degrees [and] what happens to the world if it’s warmer by two degrees.

Are there instances where you as a CEO, or as a company, have said, “Yeah, we care about that issue, but we can’t go there. That’s too hot, that’s too controversial”?

Solheim: There are many issues where we’ve had to say we can’t go there, not necessarily because they’re too hot or too controversial, more because we don’t judge that we have a real ability to make an impact, or that we are prepared. You know, we believe you’ve got to walk the walk — not just talk. So we want to align our internal programs with the external campaigning.

There are issues that come up that are important — legitimate issues — but we haven’t built an internal program. So we’ll start that, and then join in. But controversy is not something that scares us. Maybe it should, but it doesn’t. We were the only corporation to support Occupy Wall Street at Zuccotti Park, which was a surprise to them, as well. And you know, nothing bad really happened to our business as a result of that.

Klein: We’d like to hope in the social impact space that companies can actually achieve a positive financial return and a social return on investment, and on social impact strategies. What’s your sense of how this pays off or doesn’t pay off for Ben & Jerry’s? I mean, it sounds terribly crass, but is there money to be made through corporate social responsibility in this kind of values-driven company?

Solheim: There is. There is because people want to make a difference with … actions and activities that they can do. What you buy and how you buy it is a big part of your everyday life, and increasingly, consumers are saying, “I don’t want to waste my money on products that don’t try to make a difference.”

Now there’s a lot of “greenwashing” out there, so people are rightly skeptical and demand real evidence, and [validation from] some other authorities, so they’re not just relying on what a company says. But it’s the fastest-growing area of fast-moving consumer goods by far: Socially responsible companies are making up 60% of the growth in fast-moving consumer goods in developed markets. If you look at a Nielsen study that just came out, which was across 14 countries, what you’re seeing is the rate of change is really picking up. In 2013, 50% of respondents said that they would pay more for a socially responsible product. Today, that’s already at 66% and accelerating. And obviously, a big driver of that is our wonderful millennials.

Klein: Do you see this as something that any company can do? Ben & Jerry’s could be criticized on some level for the healthiness of its ice cream. I’m thinking of other products that we may look at and say, “That’s not a healthy product, that’s not a product that’s good for the environment.” And yet, can any company find ways to live this mission?

Solheim: Absolutely. Not every company will become an activist company or a campaigning company like Ben & Jerry’s. I wouldn’t think that’s appropriate for every company. But every company can make those decisions that optimize their social impact and their business impact in any industry, anywhere, that benefits their employees, their communities, the environment — whichever constituents that they address. I don’t think that this is something unique to specific companies.

On the healthy vs. non-healthy products, in good products and bad products — for us, it’s all about transparency. I always say when you’re tucking into a Ben & Jerry’s and you’re on a diet, you know there are no hidden calories here — they’re right there for you to enjoy. And the world needs all sorts of different things to function. But I think transparency is critical. People should understand what they’re trying to get into, and we shouldn’t try to fool people. We shouldn’t have hidden sugars or hidden fats.

“We were the only corporation to support Occupy Wall Street at Zuccotti Park, which was a surprise to them, as well.”

It’s got to be transparent and open. It goes the same for all other industries. So again, I think it’s hard to say, “Oh, I’m in this business and this product, hence, I can’t have a social impact strategy.”

Klein: As you think about the social impact that Ben & Jerry’s has had and the places where you’ve tried to make a difference — I’m particularly interested in your own operations, whether this is your supply chain, your HR practices — can you talk to us about something that you’re particularly proud of — perhaps something relatively recent — and then, areas where you say, “We haven’t cracked this nut, we still have work to do in this area”?

Solheim: We did an assessment around what are the really big and important issues [to us] and … [after] a lot of internal discussion, it was very clear to us that there were two big topics that we needed to address over the next to five to 10 years and that’s climate and climate justice and inequality.

Racial and income … inequities that we’re seeing are creating such a tension in society, it’s hard even to operate businesses. … So we’ve embraced these two topics and what I’m the most proud of is just to see how our teams, our partners, embrace it and scale and throw themselves into making a difference. That’s probably what makes me the most proud.

What we haven’t cracked is, how do you reduce your carbon footprint by 80%? There’s a lot noise out there [about] a way [of doing business] that will be carbon neutral — well, the carbon footprint of a business goes end to end. It starts on a farm and finishes with the waste product. And you need to take responsibility for the whole thing — we need to reduce that by 80%. Fifty percent of our carbon footprint is in ingredients.

Klein: On the inequity/inequality front, maybe two questions. What is the connection you’re seeing between business success and inequality? What is that negative relationship you are seeing? And how might you take action in this space?

Solheim: That’s typically the first question you get when you’re getting involved in structural racism and some of these other deep-rooted social issues — and what’s in it for a business. If you actually look at the correlation of success, of economic success and inequality, it is highly correlated. We have an inherent value and belief that a society where everybody is treated justly and equally is just a better community to be in. It maps out very nicely, as well, in terms of economic opportunity and success.

It comes from our human values; it comes from the values we have in our company. But we also see those communities thriving and doing better and being better for our business. Climate justice is about climate change, but it’s also about the fact that poor people, disadvantaged people, get hurt first. The wealthy can move, they can shift around; the poor cannot. That has an equity component in it. But as we’re moving into the next phase, for us, we have to recognize that we’re a terribly white company. You know, we come from Vermont, and Vermont is 96% white.

We’ve had to do a lot of work in our company to really, really understand it. And we’ve partnered with a whole host of different, amazing partners, we’ve had a lot of NGOs and activists that have taken their time and invested in us to get a better understanding of this.

I think 2016 will be exciting. It’s an election year, it’s a great opportunity to rearrange the lighting [and] get a disproportionate impact on certain key issues like voter rights and minority participation in our democracy.

More From Knowledge at Wharton

Slow Burn | Jisung Park

Are Corporate Human Rights Practices Up to Par?

How Green Hydrogen Is Critical to Electrifying Everything

Looking for more insights.

Sign up to stay informed about our latest article releases.

The rise, fall, and comeback of ice cream giant Ben & Jerry’s

Our experts

Written and reviewed by:.

Sign up to the Startups Weekly Newsletter

Stay informed on the top business stories with Startups.co.uk’s weekly email newsletter

Most business books are boring. They either plod along, or string together perky anecdotes separated by “takeaways” that give readers sure-fire ways to achieve “success”, whatever that means.

My book, Ice Cream Social:  The Struggle for the Soul of Ben & Jerry’s is different. It’s more like a five-act tragicomedy where the hero rises, falls, and rises again. The characters are noble and flawed. They fail almost as often as they succeed, they do surprising things, and they finish their journeys stronger, sadder, and wiser.

The first act of the story is well known. Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Ice Cream begins as a storefront in Burlington, Vermont in 1978 operated by two 26-year-old best friends, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield.

Their friend Jeff Furman, who is a few years older and has a law degree, helps them write their first business plan by taking a plan for a pizza restaurant and substituting the word “cone” whenever the plan used the word “slice.”

The business runs in the spirit of the counter-culture. Once a year, Ben and Jerry spend the day giving away free ice cream to anyone who asks for it, including dogs.

The original store in Burlington, Vermont celebrates Free Cone Day, circa 1979

Ben & Jerry’s is a local business for its first six years, but as its sales grow, signs accumulate that something unusual is going on. An early poster for Free Cone Day features two quotes: “Business has a responsibility to give back to the community,” from Ben, and from Jerry,  “If it’s not fun, why do it?”

The ‘hockey stick’ rise

The second act, 1984 to 1993, is the happiest. Money is pouring in, and the company grows from $4m to $140m in annual sales. The media loves Ben & Jerry’s, and Ben and Jeff Furman lead the board and employees to embrace “linked prosperity”.

Ben & Jerry’s Cherry Garcia ice cream circa 1987

This is the idea that everyone and everything Ben & Jerry’s touches should benefit as the company’s profits grow. They are quite serious, and in the mid-1980s, Ben & Jerry’s starts spending lots of money it is not required to spend. Their pay and employee benefits are extremely generous.

They give away 7.5% of pre-tax profits to their charitable foundation. They look for ingredient suppliers who do good things, such as hiring hard-core unemployed people or helping tropical farmers. They begin reducing their environmental footprint.

These experiments do not always succeed, but when they do, Ben & Jerry’s is able to move their financial and social goals forward at the same time. The dynamic tension between profit and social purpose is what some call a double or a triple bottom line. Although it is hard to sustain, it gives the company its soul and attracts a lot of attention.

Losing the Ben & Jerry soul

Act three, 1993 to 1999, is when the company loses its way, and act four, 2000 to 2008, is when they almost lose their soul. Rapid growth ends, costs rise, and competitive pressures split the board of directors into two factions: those who believe in a radical version of linked prosperity, and those who believe that profit must come first.

As the split deepens, employees embrace the idea of linked prosperity and spread it throughout the business, racking up one trailblazing success after another. But then the board succumbs to competitive pressures and threats from shareholders, a bidding war ensues, and the company is sold to Unilever.

Ben and Jerry leave the board of directors after the sale, in 2000. They are heartbroken and convinced they have failed. This is the darkest part of the story. It is so sad that several people who went through the sale choked up when I interviewed them.

And for eight years after the sale, Unilever manages the business in a normal way – which is to say, they get it all wrong.  The company is assigned to an unsympathetic manager who is focused on cost-cutting; the quality of the product declines, and social mission initiatives are directed away from difficult, long-term efforts and toward campaigns that will play well in the press.

If the story ended here, it would not be worth telling. But it does not end. The people who believe in linked prosperity keep trying.

Getting that Ben & Jerry mojo back

Ben & Jerry’s Cherry Garcia ice cream as it looks today

Ben and the rest of the board agree to sell the company only after Unilever makes several unusual concessions. The sale agreements allow Ben & Jerry’s to continue as a Vermont-chartered corporation with one shareholder.

That shareholder, Unilever, grants the company the right to maintain an independent board of directors, and nine of the 11 seats on the board are filled independently of Unilever.

The board exists forever and has specific, enforceable powers to preserve the social mission and protect product quality. Unilever has primary responsibility for the financial and operational aspects of the business. So Unilever does own Ben & Jerry’s, but they do not completely control it.

In the sale agreements, Unilever gives the independent board the right to veto changes in ingredients, new products, and all marketing materials. Unilever agrees to fund an independently audited annual report of Ben & Jerry’s social performance.

They give the independent board the lead role in designing Ben & Jerry’s social mission activities. They agree to spend significant sums on the social mission, to continue making generous contributions to the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation, to increase these budget lines as the company’s sales increase, and to keep these promises forever. They also agree to pay all Ben & Jerry’s employees a “living wage,” which is far higher than the state-mandated minimum wage.

The Ben & Jerry’s factory in Waterbury, Vermont

Although his friends are gone, Jeff Furman stays on the board after the sale because the agreement gives him the right to sue Unilever, at their expense, if they ever break this wage promise.

But the board is demoralised, and they do not stand up for these rights for several years. The last act of the story begins in 2008, when Jeff and other board members finally stand up to demand that Unilever take the sale agreements seriously.

After a year of tense negotiations, and significant changes in the Unilever management team, Ben & Jerry’s gets its groove back and starts to prosper as a bigger, more mature company.

The story has a happy ending, mostly. Annual sales have increased from $237m when the company was sold to over $500m today; the product is sold in 35 countries, and Ben & Jerry’s customers are unusually loyal and passionate.

Yet Jeff and other believers in linked prosperity have also learned things the hard way. They know that the struggle to maintain the creative tension between profit and purpose will never end.

Ben & Jerry’s sent Jeff Furman to Russia 30 times to run two stores as an experiment in cultural exchange

Jeff is 70 this year, and in his fourth year as chairman of the board of Ben & Jerry’s. He has spent half his life working for the company. He cooperated with me on this book because he knows his most important job is to pass the spirit of linked prosperity on to a new generation.

Ben, Jerry, Jeff, and their colleagues made mistakes as they built their business, but they never gave up on their belief that another world is possible. They found that maintaining a three-part mission takes constant effort when you are surrounded by businesses that focus on profits above everything else.

To succeed, you must persuade everyone in the organization to buy in and participate in the struggle. Because your expectations are higher, what looks like success to an outsider might feel like failure. And there will always be a temptation to take credit, pocket the money, and let things slide. That happened at Ben & Jerry’s more than once, and there’s no guarantee that it won’t happen again.

What is certain is that the struggle to reconcile profits with social justice will never end. The Ben & Jerry’s story shows that the struggle can also be fun, when you’re doing it right.

Brad Edmondson is an award-winning journalist and editor. He regularly posts new material about Ben & Jerry’s on his website and is collecting signatures to wish Ben Cohen a happy 63rd birthday for services to social enterprise.  www.icecreamsocialbook.com . 

Written by:

Related articles.

Articles and News

FROM FAILURE TO BILLIONAIRE: BEN & JERRY’S FOUNDER ON THE IMPORTANCE OF CREATIVITY AND INTEGRITY By Hedda Schupak, Editor, The Centurion  |  February 07, 2013 ( 0 comments )

Scottsdale, AZ—What happens when two overweight, out-of-shape kids meet in seventh grade gym class? In the case of Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, they became fast friends, business partners, and, eventually, legends in the hearts of ice cream lovers everywhere.

But the success of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream began as a lesson in repeated failure, said Jerry Greenfield, a keynote speaker at the 2013 Centurion Show.

“Ben enrolled at Colgate University, because the dorm rooms had fireplaces and he thought that would be cool to have a fireplace in his room,” Greenfield told the audience. But Cohen dropped out of Colgate and three other colleges, including even the “University Without Walls” which credits life experiences instead of classroom instruction. He went through a series of odd jobs as well.

Greenfield, meanwhile, had graduated college pre-med, but having been rejected by a dozen medical schools, went to work as a lab technician in hopes it would boost his chances on his next round of applications. It didn’t.

The two friends decided, somewhat on a whim, that it might be fun to make ice cream for a living. They took a correspondence course in ice cream making from the Pennsylvania State University creamery and earned top marks—a feat Greenfield laughs wasn’t terribly hard with an open-book exam.

The two friends, armed with their newfound knowledge and second-hand commercial ice cream equipment, decided to look for a warm rural college town to set up shop. Their reasoning was simple: college students love ice cream, and when it’s hot, everyone wants ice cream. The only flaw in their reasoning was that they were absolutely right, and someone had already beaten them to it in every warm rural college town they tried.

So they settled in Burlington, VT, a cold-climate college town with no ice cream parlor.

Armed with $8,000, the two set out to get a bank loan, which, as one might guess, was initially unsuccessful. But a friend who had worked for the Small Business Administration gave them a successful business plan from a small pizza shop as a model for their plan. Everywhere the plan said “slice of pizza,” they crossed it out and wrote “ice cream cone.” The bank resubmitted the plan to the SBA, which apparently had liked it enough the first time around (and obviously didn’t seem to recognize it) that they approved it for Ben & Jerry’s, contingent on a multi-year lease for space. In the end, the bank lent the two $4,000, which meant re-jiggering the business plan, but that’s what the two did, renovating an old gas station with the cheapest materials they could find.

The ice cream shop was a success—till winter, when demand for ice cream fell along with the temperature. But they made it through the winter with some clever weather-related price promotions and sales to area restaurants.

Jerry Greenfield addresses attendees at Centurion 2013. At the top of this page, "Cherry Garcia" is Ben & Jerry's best selling ice cream flavor. New flavors go through a rigorous selection process before going into production, with only about one in 30 making it out of the lab, said Greenfield. In a riff on the famous line "many are called, few are chosen," he said at Ben & Jerry's, "many are called but few are frozen."

A year later, still in business but facing another winter, Cohen got the idea to package ice cream in small containers and target mom-and-pop groceries along with restaurants. With a Styrofoam chest in the back of a battered station wagon, he went on the road selling, and ultimately got a break when a distributor in Boston picked up the line.

But a frantic call from the distributor asked the two to meet in private, where he broke the news that Pillsbury, parent of the popular premium Haagen-Dazs ice cream brand, had threatened to pull it from the distributor if he continued to sell Ben & Jerry’s.

“I can’t afford to be without Haagen Dazs,” he told the pair. Cohen was dumbfounded, said Greenfield. “I can’t believe Pillsbury is afraid of us,” he said. Besides, wasn’t that illegal restraint of trade? Greenfield said the two figured if they were going down by suing Pillsbury, they’d take the case to the people, and launched what became a legendary advertising campaign.

“What’s The Doughboy Afraid Of?” screamed their ads. Both Ben and Jerry picketed Pillsbury’s Minneapolis headquarters carrying signs of the same theme, and they hired pilots to fly aerial banners across the sports stadium in Boston asking the question again.

They put together a “Doughboy Mailing Kit” for consumers to use to protest Pillsbury’s actions, and got the word out using a recorded telemarketing campaign. Requests for the kit poured in. It was a true David and Goliath story and the media loved it, including the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times . In the end—but long before social media—Pillsbury backed down and the brand went on to become legendary.

David and Goliath: With limited funds for a protracted legal battle, Ben and Jerry's got creative and took its fight against Pillsbury to the people.  The Doughboy campaign became a legend in marketing history and saved the brand. 

But while the success was building, the two hippies who set out to make ice cream for fun realized they were no longer ice cream guys, they were businessmen, with employees, shareholders, and a big business. To them, big business was The Man: something that took advantage of employees and destroyed the environment, and they didn’t want to do that. But they were at a point where they needed money to grow, and didn’t want to go to venture capitalists, so they went public on a state and local level.

But eventually, as a public company, when personal products giant Unilever came calling with a hefty share offer, they had to go with what shareholders wanted, which was to make more money.

Selling out wasn’t an easy decision, admits Greenfield. It was a long, and often painful, process. But the two did ensure that their original values were kept—along with their jobs, which, as he joked, became symbolic instead of hands-on. But the sale to Unilever was contingent on the corporation keeping the same principles the founders set in place regarding integrity of the brand, including ethical sourcing, environmental responsibility and keeping an employee-centric workplace, as well as ensuring an employee profit-sharing plan for Ben & Jerry’s employees. It also was contingent on establishing the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation, which is funded with 7% of pre-tax profits every year.

“We’re overwhelmed with grant requests,” says Greenfield of the foundation. “There’s tremendous human need and never enough money to go around.” But he still maintains that the real power of a business is not how much money goes to charity, but in how it operates on a day-to-day basis in terms of its sourcing, financing, and so forth. As an example, Greenfield pointed to the brownies used in the Chocolate Fudge Brownie flavor, which come from a factory that hires only disadvantaged people.

But some of the Ben & Jerry’s ideals had to adjust to market realities. Among them was the salary structure that Cohen and Greenfield had established, preventing the kind of outsized CEO compensation packages that in years later would set off protests like Occupy Wall Street. The Ben & Jerry’s CEO was prevented from making any more than a 10-time rate over the lowest-paid employee. The original plan called for a five to one ratio, which was amended to a seven to one ratio, and eventually to 10 to one.

It wasn’t done to limit CEO salary, but rather to emphasize the importance of each employee to the final product. “We could go as high as we wanted on CEO compensation, as long as we brought the bottom up to remain within the ratio,” said Greenfield. But to get an outside CEO, the firm had to concede and pay market rate.

“It’s still not [an] outrageous [difference between CEO and employee wages] but it hurt to give in on such an important stake the company was founded on,” admitted Greenfield. But it just didn’t work in a larger environment, he conceded.

The years with Unilever have had ups and downs, he admitted to the Centurion audience. But the last three have been very good, and he likes the current Unilever CEO very much. And Ben & Jerry’s still does take controversial stances, such as its campaign to keep money out of politics.

“There’s a spiritual aspect to a business, just like an individual,” said Greenfield. “When you give, you receive.”

Previous article: CENTURION NAMES FIRST VENDORS’ CHOICE RETAIL AWARDS

Next article: $32,000 RAISED FOR JFC DURING 2013 CENTURION SHOW

Share This:

Articles by date.

• September 2024
• August 2024
• February 2024
• January 2024
• December 2023
• November 2023
• October 2023

How Ben & Jerry's Created Its Purpose-Driven Legacy

Ceo believes fear should not prevent brands from standing up for what they believe in.

Long before it was widespread, Ben & Jerry’s was at the forefront of social responsibility. For the iconic ice cream makers, it’s not cause marketing, and it’s not philanthropy. CEO Matthew McCarthy understands the power of businesses as a force for good and has led the way for social activism in the brand arena. McCarthy joined Day 1 of Brandweek to discuss marketers’ newfound voice and the importance of sticking by your brand values, even when faced with ‘haters.’ 

Ben & Jerry’s purpose-driven legacy  

Ben & Jerry ’s has been purpose-driven from the start. Its founders engrained altruism into the brand from the start—selling ice cream as a way to give back to the community. 

“Ben and Jerry have long felt that business is the most powerful force in society, and if business doesn’t get involved and actually tackle problems and make the world a better place, we’re not gonna get there,” said McCarthy. “Business has a huge impact, and therefore, it’s just natural for businesses to want to be part of driving progressive change.” 

A blueprint of how Ben & Jerry’s created their purpose-driven legacy can be found in the company’s business model, known as Linked Prosperity—as the business grows, they create opportunities for all the people they interacted with along the way, up and down the supply chain. 

“For us, it’s not about cause marketing,” said McCarthy. “It’s truly about trying to tackle real societal issues through our business in ways that we try to advance every day.”

Owning your brand narrative  

It has become increasingly crucial for brands to stand up and advocate for social issues and show compassion across all touchpoints in today’s turbulent times. McCarthy says brand values matter today more than ever. “What a brand stands and advocates for is as vital as traditional brand equity and product attribute that drive consideration, purchase, and loyalty.” 

In July of 2021, Ben & Jerry’s decided to  end sales of its ice cream  in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), declaring that sales in the OPT were inconsistent with their values. 

“When you try to stand up for what the values of your business are, some people will agree—we’ve had many, many people agree with us and support us. And then there’s a whole bunch of people who will express—quite loudly—that they disprove. That’s okay. All people’s voices matter.” 

In today’s age, unsatisfied customers have more avenues than ever to make their disdain known. McCarthy says this fear should not prevent brands from standing up for what they believe in. 

“The people that disagree are more vocal now than ever—social media, digital sophistication,” he said. “So, that blowback that we see can feel more intense because there’s a lot of friction out there in the world, there’s a lot of people fighting and arguing. What I would say is don’t let that scare you, even if you feel nervous.”

How Campbell Snacks Finds the Courage to Disrupt Itself

Alexandra Bower

• @alexandra_cc1

Alexandra Bower is a freelance writer for Adweek.

From a renovated gas station in Burlington, Vermont, to far-off places with names we sometimes mispronounce, the journey that began in 1978 with 2 guys and the ice cream business they built is as legendary as the ice cream is euphoric.

Through The Decades:

1978 humble beginnings.

With a $5 correspondence course in ice cream-making from Penn State and a $12,000 investment ($4,000 of it borrowed), Ben and Jerry open their first ice cream scoop shop in a renovated gas station in Burlington, Vermont.

1979 Next Step...

Ben and Jerry celebrate the shop's one-year anniversary – and the customers who made it possible – by holding the first-ever Free Cone Day: free scoops for all, all day long. The annual ice cream give-away continues today in scoop shops around the world.

1980 Supply & Demand

Ben and Jerry rent space in an old spool and bobbin mill on South Champlain Street in Burlington and begin packing their ice cream in pints. The reason? To distribute to grocery and Mom & Pop stores along the restaurant delivery routes Ben services out of the back of his old VW Squareback wagon.

1981 We Want More!

As the news of Ben & Jerry's spreads, more & more people want a lick. So the first franchised scoop shop opens in Shelburne, Vermont.

1982 Pack It Up!

The old gas station is demolished to create a parking lot. Just before the wrecking ball is swung, the new Ben & Jerry's on Cherry Street in Burlington is up & scooping.

1983 Now That's What I Call a Sundae

Ben & Jerry's ice cream is used to build "the world's largest ice cream sundae" in St. Albans, Vermont; the sundae weighs 27,102 pounds.

1984 Get a Scoop of the Action

Ben & Jerry's sets a precedent by discovering a little-known clause about stocks and brokering, then establish a Vermont-only public stock offering to raise money for a new manufacturing plant.

1985 The Heart of the Matter

The Ben & Jerry's Foundation is established with a gift from Ben and Jerry & 7.5% of the company's annual pre-tax profits to fund community-oriented projects.

1986 "Like the world's largest baked Alaska"

Ben & Jerry's launches the Cowmobile, a modified mobile home used to distribute free scoops in a unique, cross-country "marketing drive." On the return trip, the Cowmobile burns to the ground outside of Cleveland, Ohio (no one was hurt). Ben said it looked "like the world's largest Baked Alaska."

1987 Very Grateful

Ben & Jerry's introduces Cherry Garcia® ice cream. Named for Grateful Dead guitarist Jerry Garcia at the suggestion of two "DeadHeads" from Portland, Maine, Cherry Garcia® becomes the first ice cream named for a rock legend.

1988 Hail From the Chief

Ben and Jerry are named “U.S. Small Business Persons of the Year” by President Reagan in a White House Rose Garden ceremony. Jerry's one suit comes in handy and, luckily, Ben finds an Italian waiter's jacket to wear.

1989 Artificial Growth Hormone? Not in Our Ice Cream!

Ben & Jerry's comes out against Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH), based on concern about its adverse economic impact on family farming and public confidence in the wholesomeness of dairy products.

1990 Contented Cows Make the Best Ice Cream

Eight million Ben & Jerry's pints carry a "Support Farm Aid" message as part of the grassroots efforts of Farm Aid, a non-profit organization whose mission is to keep family farmers on their land.

1991 A Pint-Sized Legend is Born

Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough is released in pints after years of research and development. The flavor rockets to the top of the most-popular-in-pints list. Today it still reigns among our all-time flavor hits. (The first-ever batch of the flavor was created in Ben & Jerry’s Burlington scoop shop in 1984, the result of an anonymous note scribbled on the shop's suggestion board).

1992 Take a Stand for Children

Ben & Jerry's joins in a cooperative campaign with the national non-profit, Children's Defense Fund; the campaign goal is to bring children's basic needs to the top of the national agenda. Over 70,000 postcards are sent to Congress concerning kids and other national issues.

1993 "The 90's are the 60's Standing on Your Head"

Wavy Gravy leads the pack of new flavors. It's named after the famous 1960's Woodstock Festival personality who is today a one-man non-profit helping kids.

1994 Greetings, Your Majesty

Pints of Ben & Jerry's ice cream begin to appear in the United Kingdom.

1995 www.benjerry.com

Hundreds of thousands of cyber-surfers visit the Ben & Jerry's World Wide Web site for virtual licks & voluminous laughs.

1996 No Fat, No Lactose, No Cholesterol

Ben & Jerry's introduces Sorbets made with pure spring water & the best fruits & flavorings. Doonesberry® Sorbet is named after the popular "Doonesbury®" comic strip character. It has since been sent to the Flavor Graveyard, but other sorbets live on in Scoop Shops.

1997 Phish Food For People

The great music & renowned concert tours of the Vermont-based musical group, Phish®, inspire Phish Food® ice cream.

1998 Happy Birthday with a Whole New Look

Some folks thought our packages were hard to read (& the flavors hard to resist), so after 20 years we dressed up our pints with a fresh new look!

1999 The Flying Friesian

In the U.K., Ben & Jerry’s launches the Flying Friesian, a raucous tour bus retrofitted for fun, with a focus on fundraising for U.K. kids-in-need network, Childline.

2000 Big Changes

August 3, 2000: Ben & Jerry’s becomes a wholly-owned subsidiary of Unilever. Through a unique acquisition agreement, an independent Board of Directors is created to provide leadership focused on preserving and expanding Ben & Jerry's social mission, brand integrity, and product quality. We call them the B.O.D. (Which means we really like them.)

2001 We're Making A Movie

Citizen Cool is a documentary about ordinary folks making an impact in their communities. We celebrate this new release with a flavor inspired by movie treats, Concession Obsession.

2002 One Sweet Whirled

It's an ice cream flavor...it's an environmental action website...it's One Sweet Whirled™ and it's all interconnected, as Ben & Jerry's partners with Dave Matthews Band® & SaveOurEnvironment.org in a campaign to help fight global warming.

2003 Celebrating 25 Years

Ben & Jerry's kicks off the year with a birthday bash at our factory in Waterbury, Vermont at the first-ever Winter Fest. Still crazy after 25 years.

2004 Rock the Vote!

In an effort to drive voter turnout among young people in the US, Ben & Jerry's partners with Rock the Vote. RTV street teams leverage the long lines of customers on Free Cone Day to register over 11,000 voters – the biggest one-day grassroots registration in Rock the Vote's history.

2005 Drilling is Not the ANsWer

To protest proposed oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, we construct a 900-pound Baked Alaska with our Fossil Fuel ice cream, shoulder it onto the US Capital lawn and serve it up with the help of Greenpeace and the Alaska Wilderness League.

2006 Fair Trade Upgrade

Ben & Jerry's continues to support fair trade efforts which started with Coffee and the launch of Coffee Coffee BuzzBuzzBuzz in 1996 by adding Vanilla and Chocolate to the line-up. Fairtrade certification guarantees that the farmers who grow the vanilla, cocoa and coffee beans get a fair price for their harvest, enabling them to reinvest in their land and communities.

2007 Truth or Clone-sequences

When the U.S. Food & Drug Administration declared that it believed meat and milk from cloned animals was safe to eat, we were beside ourselves, twice over! To show our disappointment with the FDA's decision – and to urge Americans to speak out against cloning – we sent a determined herd of cow-costumed folks to Washington, D.C. for a "Truth or Clone-sequences" demonstration.

2008 The Batch is Back

We introduce Goodbye Yellow Brickle Road in recognition of Elton John's first concert in Vermont.

2009 Do the World a Flavor

We hold an international “Do the World a Flavor” contest encouraging people to share their ideas for a Fairtrade flavor. Top contestants visit the Dominican Republic, tour a cocoa co-op, and build a playground for children in the village of Yabon. The winning flavor, Almond Delight, is featured in scoop shops across the US as a Limited Batch in 2010.

2010 Fair Trade Commitment

Ben & Jerry's makes a significant commitment to source Fairtrade ingredients and to support the global Fairtrade movement. We’re in the process of converting our ingredients to Fairtrade globally where we feel we can have the greatest impact on improving the lives of farmers, strengthening their communities and protecting the environment.

2011 Occupy!

When protestors in New York City and other places take to the streets under the Occupy Wall Street banner in the fall of 2011 to rally against increasing economic inequality in the United States, high unemployment, mortgage fraud, and too much corporate influence in American politics, Ben & Jerry’s Board of Directors issues a direct statement of solidarity, and we show up in Zucotti Park on several occasions to scoop ice cream for Occupiers.

2012 It's Greekin' Good!

Ben & Jerry’s gets creative with real Greek yogurt, introducing an epic selection of Greek Frozen Yogurt flavors that are uniquely creamy, boldly loaded with chunks and swirls, and really Greekin' good!

2013 GMO? Thanks, but No.

As the campaign to label food products made with GMO ingredients moves across the states, including Vermont, Ben & Jerry's is proud to stand with the growing consumer movement for transparency and the right to know what’s in our food supply by supporting mandatory GMO labeling legislation. In 2013, we also commit to transitioning all of our ingredients to be fully sourced non-GMO.

2014 Fans Make Non-Dairy Demands!

Our fans have spoken and want a Non-Dairy option, they even went as far as starting a Change.org petition .

2015 Another Flavor for Fallon...The Tonight Dough!

The concoction is caramel and chocolate ice creams with chocolate cookie swirls & gobs of chocolate chip cookie dough & peanut butter cookie dough. If the flavor becomes half as popular as the unflappable Fallon, who was dubbed “entertainer of the year,” it may give Ben & Jerry’s other classic combinations a run for their money.

2016 You Dared Us to Go Dairyless - and We Did!

Our Non-Dairy flavor creations are made with almond milk, 100% Certified Vegan, and boldly loaded with chunks and swirls. You’ll get Ben & Jerry’s euphoria in every bite. These flavors deliver everything… but the cow. The first Non-Dairy flavors in our line up were: Chocolate Fudge Brownie, Chunky Monkey, Coffee Caramel Fudge and P.B. & Cookies.

2017 IT'S BEN & JERRY'S, ANY WAY YOU SLICE IT

Pint Slices, inspired by the very best part of the pint, give fans a way to enjoy euphoric flavors, chunks and swirls in a round single serving that’s enrobed in a decadent chocolatey coating. It’s a to-go order of ice cream goodness that’s easy to take on the road, and hard to resist.

2018 Together, Pecan Resist!

Alongside all those nutty chunks, this pint packs a powerful message under its lid. Together, we can build a more just and equitable tomrrow.

2019 Justice ReMix'd

Ben & Jerry's flavor & action campaign supporting reforms that invest in people instead of prisons to deliver justice for all, instead of just for some.

2021 Change is Brewing!

Ben & Jerry's launches Change is Brewing as part of our ongoing work to advance racial justice, calling for the nation to divest from a broken criminal legal system and invest in services that help communities thrive.

The History Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream

Meet the founders and learn the company's story

• Entrepreneurship
• Small Business
• Online Business
• Home Business
• Operations & Success

Daniel Richards is an expert in entrepreneurship, business finance, and business strategy. 

Ice cream is a sweet treat that few can resist. Although vanilla is the most popular flavor in the U.S., there is a seemingly endless number of varieties and manufacturers. One of the best-known purveyors is Ben & Jerry’s , the brand synonymous with funky flavors like Cherry Garcia and Chunky Monkey as well as a groovy Vermont vibe.

Who Owns Ben & Jerry's?

Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield were childhood friends born four days apart in 1951 in Brooklyn, New York. You could say that ice cream runs in their veins. During his senior year of high school, Ben drove an ice cream truck. After high school, he attended and dropped out of various colleges in the Northeast, eventually leaving his studies altogether to teach pottery on a working farm in New York's Adirondack region, where he also dabbled in ice cream-making.

Jerry started on a more traditional path. After graduating high school, he attended Oberlin College to study medicine, working as an ice cream scooper in the school’s cafeteria. Upon graduating, he returned to New York to work as a lab technician, while applying to medical school without success. During his lab tech days, he shared a Manhattan apartment with Ben. After moving to North Carolina for a few years, Jerry reunited with Ben in Saratoga Springs, N.Y., and they decided to go into the food business together.

At first, the pair thought about making bagels but decided the necessary equipment was too expensive. Instead, they settled on ice cream. They decided Burlington, Vt., was an ideal location for a scoop shop because it was a college town without an ice cream parlor. They took a $5 course on ice-cream making and in 1978 opened the first Ben & Jerry’s in a converted Burlington gas station.

The Growth of Ben & Jerry's

The original scoop shop became a community favorite thanks to its rich ice cream and creative flavors. Ben and Jerry also made it a point to connect with the community, hosting a free film festival and giving away free scoops on the first anniversary of the store, a tradition that still continues. In 1980, the duo began making pints to sell to local grocers. In 1981 they expanded the operation, opening the first franchise store in Shelburne, VT.

In 1983, the company opened its first non-Vermont franchise in Maine and signed a deal with a Boston distribution company. Signature flavors were unveiled throughout the 1980s—including New York Super Fudge Chunk and Cherry Garcia—and by 1987, sales were at $32 million. By year's end 1988, with the company operating shops in 18 states, Ben and Jerry earned the distinctive award of U.S. Small Business Persons of the Year from President Ronald Reagan.

Creative Flavors

One reason for the quick popularity of Ben & Jerry’s was its unique flavor combinations. All new flavors were invented by Jerry, usually without any test marketing . Some 1980s flagship flavors include Chunky Monkey, Rainforest Crunch, and Economic Crunch, scoops of which Ben & Jerry’s served up for free on Wall Street following the stock market crash of Oct. 19, 1987.

Growing Pains

The company’s path hasn’t always been as smooth as its ice cream blends. Ben & Jerry’s faced off with Häagen-Dazs over distribution rights, leading to lawsuits against Häagen-Dazs’ parent, the Pillsbury Company, in the mid-1980s. As the company’s rapid growth continued, it became obvious to the founders that they needed someone with more business acumen to keep the business running. After allowing customers to apply for the job in the “Yo! I’m Your CEO” contest, the company in 1995 selected Robert Holland, a veteran of McKinsey & Co. Ironically, Holland was found by a search firm , not through the contest.

Holland’s hiring brought the company to a crossroads. Ben and Jerry had become the brand’s icons. There was concern that the company would lose its informal hierarchy and unique culture under Holland’s leadership. Ben & Jerry’s had always had a strict pay-scale ratio for its management, which it had to break when hiring Holland.

Furthermore, Ben & Jerry’s was going through a trying time in the marketplace. Although the company had made its name with wacky flavors and chunky mix-ins, the most popular ice cream flavor in America was—as it remains—plain vanilla. The firm released a line of “Smooth, No Chunks!” flavors to capture the segment of the market that preferred less funky flavors.

While the super-premium ice cream market was growing, so was the competition. Häagen-Dazs and Dreyer’s were major players. Ben & Jerry’s historically outsourced some production to Dreyer’s in order to reach customers in the Western U.S. Now that Dreyer’s was becoming more of a competitor, Ben & Jerry’s had to worry about its dependence on a competitor for manufacturing and distribution.

Holland stepped down in 1996. The following year, Perry Odak became the new CEO, driving sales that year to nearly $174 million. In late 1999, the firm announced it had received notice of interest from other large firms, and in 2000 international food giant Unilever purchased the Ben & Jerry’s brand for $326 million, although the deal called for Ben & Jerry’s to be operated separately from Unilever’s other ice cream brands.

The Social Mission at Ben & Jerry's

This unique arrangement allowed Ben & Jerry’s to continue to run its business in a socially conscious manner, which had been a trademark of the brand since its inception. Some examples of this mission  include:

• An original scoop shop made of recycled materials
• Creation of a “Green Team" in 1989, focusing on environmental education throughout the company
• A company bus equipped with solar panels
• The use of hormone-free milk in its products
• A commitment to reducing solid and dairy waste, recycling, and water and energy conservation at the company’s facilities
• Advertising Industry Profile: Legendary Bill Bernbach
• Mary Kay Ash
• Oprah Winfrey and Her Business Ventures
• Howard Hughes: The Aviator, The Innovator, The Billionaire
• Wayne Huizenga, Founder of Waste Management
• Famous Black Entrepreneurs Series: Tyra Banks
• Ingvar Kamprad: IKEA Founder and One of the World's Richest Men
• 9 Global Businesses That Began as Side Hustles and How They Started
• Donald Trump: From Entrepreneur to U.S. President
• Small Business Success Stories
• What Every Entrepreneur Can Learn from Walt Disney
• Bio of Henry Ford Founder of Ford Motor Company
• Adam Osborne: Innovator of the First Portable Computer
• Famous Entrepreneurs Who Started Late in Life
• How to Come up With a Great Business Idea
• Should You Buy or Start a Small Business?

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, ben & jerry’s.

British Food Journal

ISSN : 0007-070X

Article publication date: 1 June 1999

Two entrepreneurs, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, had great success with their Ben & Jerry’s ice cream in the USA. Their first attempt at internationalisation, however, was a failure. While international markets offered opportunities, Ben and Jerry realised that risks were also inherent in foreign markets. The purpose of this case is to stimulate thought about internationalisation and about franchising as a means to expand abroad.

• Entrepreneurship
• Advertising
• Company failures
• Brand awareness

Paul Dana, L. (1999), "Ben & Jerry’s", British Food Journal , Vol. 101 No. 5/6, pp. 488-490. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070709910278488

Copyright © 1999, MCB UP Limited

Related articles

All feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

Doing Business : The Flavor of Success, and Failure, in Russia : * Ben & Jerry’s opened and is doing well. But another U.S. company hoping to export lumber is not.

• Copy Link URL Copied!

In this quaint lakeside city near the Finnish border, two American businesses sit right across the street from each other. But their experiences in negotiating the tough Russian market could not be more different.

One company is extremely successful, with customers lined up outside the door eight hours a day. The other has yet to cut a major deal after two years of trying.

Taken together, the stories of Vermont ice cream maker Ben & Jerry’s and the Mid-American Russian Corp., or Marco, a Missouri-based lumber company, show why it is so painfully difficult to do business in the former Soviet Union and what it takes to be successful.

Ben & Jerry’s--known for its activist business practices that include giving a share of profit to charity--first considered setting up shop in Russia in 1987. It was inspired to try “ice cream diplomacy” by then-Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev’s perestroika reforms.

But it was three years before the company formed a joint venture, agreeing to open an ice cream factory and parlor in Petrozavodsk, capital of Russia’s Karelia region, 175 miles northeast of St. Petersburg.

Ben & Jerry’s knew that they had a market. Russians are ice cream addicts, known to stand in line for a cone even in the dead of winter. What the Americans did not know was how tricky it would be to get and keep an operation going.

“We quickly learned that to do business here, you can’t just have a Plan A and Plan B. You need Plans C, D, E, F and G,” said Greg Quinn, general director of Ben & Jerry’s Russian operation. “You have to expect things not to go right and then be flexible to take advantage of it.”

“Ben i Dzherris,” as it become known, slowly rented space for its combination cafe-factory, found dependable supply sources for ingredients and taught its staff of 100 the nuances of ice cream making. Its Russian partners are the Pioneer Palace, the youth center where the cafe is located; InterCenter, a cultural exchange organization, and Petrobank, a Petrozavodsk bank.

The retail outlet opened in July, 1992.

“Sure, we had problems. We have problems still, all the time,” Quinn said. On the day that he met with a reporter, for instance, his store had to shut down when the city turned off the water for repairs.

But the hard work is paying off. The factory-cafe and two sales branches now serve more than 6,000 people a day, dishing up two tons of flavors such as “Cherry Garcia” (vanilla ice cream with cherries) and “Karelia Crunch” (cranberry ice cream with chocolate chips).

Two scoops in a fresh waffle cone sell for 300 to 500 rubles (about 30 to 50 cents), well within reach of most Karelians. The business is turning a profit, Quinn says, and has expanded into sales of pre-packaged pints and even multi-gallon tubs in Moscow and St. Petersburg.

Like many foreign busineses here, Ben & Jerry’s uses the rubles to pay for ingredients, equipment and salaries in Russia and then wires the excess home. Although rubles aren’t officially convertible, they can be used to buy dollars at Russian banks for wiring back to the United States.

The other American business, Marco, was formed in 1991 by a small group of private investors--most of them lawyers from St. Louis and Kansas City--who saw big potential profit in exporting Russian lumber. Like Ben & Jerry’s, Marco’s investors also had a bigger aim.

“We wanted to help bring Russia back into the mainstream of the world economy,” said Bartow Shaw, a key investor.

It seemed a natural. Karelia, stretching along the Finnish border from just north of St. Petersburg to near the Arctic Circle, has lush forests of pine and birch, with one lake for every five residents. Overall exports from Karelia increased threefold last year over 1991, with paper and timber the leading products.

The first signs for the American lawyers-turned-lumbermen from the Karelian regional government were encouraging. “They were very supportive. If we needed information, if we needed interpretation, if we needed copies of laws, we got it,” Shaw said.

Karelia’s pro-investment attitude may stem from its history as part of Finland and Sweden; signs throughout Karelia are still in both Russian and Finnish.

But although Karelia has taken steps to lure foreign capital, it is very sensitive about industries involving natural resources. “They insisted that everything be on a sustained basis, that you not deplete the forest,” Shaw said.

A government agency and plenty of red tape regulate the export of timber, considered a strategic resource. Ben & Jerry’s was not so burdened, and in Shaw’s words, escaped a “big bureaucratic problem.”

Marco started its activities by searchingKarelia for potential Russian partners, such as lumber mills and furniture factories; Russian law favors joint ventures. That’s when the problems started. Knowing that Marco would be at a disadvantage if it did not find a partner, potential candidates bargained hard.

“When they sat down at the table, the price skyrocketed,” said Howard B. Hacker, Marco’s Petrozavodsk-based executive vice president. The Americans decided it was too expensive for Marco to enter a joint venture. This decision put them at a serious disadvantage. Russian law not only gives joint ventures tax breaks and exemptions from certain laws, but it also significantly eases export quotas for them. As a purely U.S.-owned company, Marco could not get permission from the government to export some ofthe products it hoped to deal in, such as cut lumber boards. Consequently, it has completed only a few small deals.

“When they made laws about foreigners doing business here, they weren’t dumb,” Hacker said. “You just can’t buy lumber and ship it out. You have put some money into a joint venture first.”

Marco is compensating by moving into products that it can get the right to export, such as plywood. But exporting is still tricky. Trucking wood products to Europe is prohibitively expensive, and the Russian ports are crowded and corrupt.

Ben & Jerry’s, in contrast, sells all its products inside Russia. It drives its own refrigerated trucks to Moscow and St. Petersburg, where clients include hard-currency supermarkets, hotels and embassies.

That doesn’t mean it has been as smooth as vanilla for Ben & Jerry’s. The government introduced a law this summer prohibiting domestically made products from being sold wholesale for hard currency. That meant Ben & Jerry’s could no longer sell to its Moscow distributor for dollars. Its distributor quit rather than deal with the uncertainties of the ruble economy, leaving the ice cream maker unable to sell in Moscow for more than six weeks, forfeiting thousands of dollars.

The firm discussed a wide range of possible solutions--including trucking ice cream into one of the nearby Baltic countries and then re-importing it to Russia as a “foreign” product--before it found a new distributor, willing to buy wholesale for rubles. The ice cream is still retailed for hard currency.

As a joint venture, Ben & Jerry’s got tax breaks, making its profit tax-free through the end of this year. Foreign-owned Marco, on the other hand, is taxed heavily, paying between 32% and 45% of its profit to the Russian government, depending on the type of deal. High taxes, Shaw said, form only one of the many daunting barriers to foreign businesses.

“The two biggest problems here are, first, problems understanding basic business principles, and second, basic lack of underlying law,” he said in a phone interview from Sumter, S.C. “It’s not clear how soon they can change the laws to create a stable environment for investors.”

In the meantime, Americans in Karelia offer some advice to others hoping to do business in Russia:

First, get a good partner. “Take the time to find somebody you can trust. You’ll make lots of mistakes together,” Quinn said.

Second, don’t expect to make a fortune by Day 2. “You have to have an incredible amount of patience,” Hacker said.

Finally, expect to lay out a chunk of capital. “You have to have a lot of money to invest, so you can lose some money,” he said.

Numbers Crunch

Here is a look at the rate of success enjoyed by Ben & Jerry’s Pioneer Palace ice cream factory in Petrozavodsk, which opened in July, 1992.

Average number of visitors per day, July 1993: 3,300.

More to Read

Why a looming dockworkers’ strike in the East is good and bad for California

Sept. 26, 2024

Southern California’s hottest commercial real estate market is for tenants that aren’t human

Sept. 27, 2024

Amazon demands a lot from its drivers. Now they’re pushing back

Sept. 24, 2024

Inside the business of entertainment

The Wide Shot brings you news, analysis and insights on everything from streaming wars to production — and what it all means for the future.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

More From the Los Angeles Times

Money Talk: Trust in the flexibility of living trusts

Sept. 29, 2024

Before you sign up for a store credit card, know what you’re getting into

Sept. 28, 2024

Dow sets a record as Wall Street drifts to the finish of another winning week

Cheech and Chong sue California over ban on certain hemp products

Most read in business.

A computer on your face? Snap and others still trying to make augmented reality glasses a reality

Sept. 17, 2024

Boeing makes a ‘final offer’ to striking workers, but union says it’s not good enough

Uber will add driverless Cruise vehicles to its fleet in 2025

Aug. 22, 2024

Money Talk: Health savings accounts offer big tax benefits. The trick is knowing when to use the funds

Sept. 15, 2024

• Arts & Culture
• Civic Engagement
• Economic Development
• Environment
• Human Rights
• Social Services
• Water & Sanitation
• Foundations
• Nonprofits & NGOs
• Social Enterprise
• Collaboration
• Design Thinking
• Impact Investing
• Measurement & Evaluation
• Organizational Development
• Philanthropy & Funding
• Current Issue
• Sponsored Supplements
• Global Editions
• In-Depth Series
• Stanford PACS
• Submission Guidelines

Socially Responsible Business

The truth about ben and jerry’s.

Contrary to myth, the sale of Ben & Jerry’s to corporate giant Unilever wasn’t legally required.

• order reprints
• related stories

By Antony Page & Robert A. Katz Fall 2012

Though it occurred a dozen years ago, the sale of Ben & Jerry’s continues to haunt social entrepreneurs. The sale’s notoriety keeps growing, moreover, because of the central role it plays in current debates over the development and enactment of new US corporate forms—such as low-profit limited liability corporations (L3Cs), benefit corporations, and flexible purpose corporations—that attempt to embed a company’s social mission into its legal structure.

The story of Ben & Jerry’s is a legend in two acts. In Act One, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, two underachievers with counterculture values, open an ice cream store in a renovated gas station in South Burlington, Vt. The company, founded in 1978, becomes a social enterprise icon. It is fair to its employees, easy on the environment , and kind to its cows. The company pioneers the pursuit of business with a double bottom line—profits and people—that Cohen and Greenfield called the “double dip.” In its heyday (circa 1990), the company was a kind of corporate hippie, wearing its convictions on its labels with funky-named flavors like Cherry Garcia, Whirled Peace, and Wavy Gravy. Peace, love, and ice cream!

In Act Two, set in 2000, the mood sours. Ben & Jerry’s is sold (out) to Unilever , the world’s third-largest consumer goods company, described by one commentator as “a giant multinational clearly focused on the financial bottom line.” 1 News of the sale sends “shudders and shivers through the socially responsible business community.” 2 An all-too-brief and unexpectedly wonderful trip becomes a bummer. If Ben & Jerry’s was a kind of corporate Woodstock, this sale was its Altamont. (As a fitting coda, Unilever discontinued Wavy Gravy in 2003 because it wasn’t profitable enough.)

This article aims to dispel the idée fixe that corporate law compelled Ben & Jerry’s directors to accept Unilever’s rich offer, overwhelming Cohen and Greenfield’s dogged efforts to maintain the company’s social mission and independence. Contemporaneous observers concluded thus, such as the stock analyst who claimed in 2000 that “Ben & Jerry’s had a legal responsibility to consider the takeover bids. … That responsibility is what forced a sale.” 3 Cohen says the same thing—on a 2010 NPR radio segment on social enterprise, he said that “the laws required the board of directors of Ben & Jerry’s to take an offer, to sell the company despite the fact that they did not want to sell the company.” 4 Greenfield agrees: “We were a public company, and the board of directors’ primary responsibility is the interest of the shareholders. … It was nothing about Unilever; we didn’t want to get bought by anybody.” 5

Corporate law has been fingered as the culprit in Ben & Jerry’s sale, which has become the poster child, proof text, and Exhibit A for the proposition that the traditional business corporation is fundamentally inhospitable, if not outright hostile, to social enterprise. Consider this passage from the summer 2009 issue of the Stanford Social Innovation Review : “[A]mong social entrepreneurs, Unilever’s purchase of Ben & Jerry’s serves as a cautionary tale of how easily corporate fiat can undermine social responsibility. ‘The board was legally required to sell to the highest bidder,’ says [an attorney with expertise in social enterprise]. Neither Ben Cohen nor Jerry Greenfield wanted to sell the company, but because it was public they had no choice.” 6

If the corporate form is bad for social enterprise, social entrepreneurs should use more suitable alternatives. Proponents of new legal forms—such as L3Cs, benefit corporations, and flexible purpose corporations—invariably cite the sale of Ben & Jerry’s to show why such forms are necessary or attractive. (See “New Organizational Forms for Hybrids,” below.) For example, a legislative report on SB 201, California’s Flexible Purpose Corporation act, states that “The story of Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream is an example of why a new entity form is sought.” It then repeats the now familiar story: “Even though Ben and Jerry did not want to sell out, they had little choice.” 7

Proponents of these forms claim they could have prevented the sale of Ben & Jerry’s, and prevent future such scenarios. After Vermont enacted its Benefit Corporation Act in 2011, one commentator asserted that “If Vermont’s law had been around 11 years ago, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield might not have had to sell their ice cream company. … [T]he laws of shareholder responsibility forced the hippie founders to sell, even though they wanted to keep control. Now, with today’s law, a new kind of corporation is created that prevents exactly that.” 8

Because the sale of Ben & Jerry’s is a critical fixture in debates over new legal forms, it’s essential to get it right. This article challenges the canonical account of that sale. It exposes the underlying assumptions about corporate law as erroneous: Corporate law does not require publicly traded corporations to maximize shareholder wealth. We describe the elaborate machinery that Ben & Jerry’s built to resist hostile takeovers and explain why these defenses, had they been invoked, would almost certainly have worked.

The Ben & Jerry’s sale does not make the legal argument for new forms. Rather, it is a lesson in how social entrepreneurs can use existing forms in creative ways to protect an enterprise’s social mission—even if they decide to forgo such protection in the end. (Of course, if the social entrepreneur remains the sole owner of the business, such protections aren’t even necessary.) The Ben & Jerry’s story contains other lessons for social entrepreneurs, including the impact of financial performance on mission and the idea that committed decision makers are the best security for mission sustainability.

From Humble Beginnings

When Cohen and Greenfield first started out, they were simply trying to earn a living. It was only when the business began to take off that they began the transition toward a progressive enterprise. Cohen was disappointed that Ben & Jerry’s was “just a business, like all others, [that] exploits its workers and the community.” 9 A friend, however, challenged him, pointing out that he could change whatever he didn’t like about the business. Over time, Cohen and Greenfield came to view their business as, in Cohen’s words, “an experiment to see if it was possible to use the tools of business to repair society.” At the end of each month, said Cohen, he and Greenfield would ask of themselves and the company: “How much have we improved the quality of life in the community? And how much profit is left over at the end of each month? If we haven’t contributed to both those objectives, we have failed.” 10 By their own expectations, and many others’, they were extraordinarily successful.

From the outset, Cohen and Greenfield were deeply committed to Vermont’s economy and environment. They relied heavily on local suppliers of milk to make their products. They hired a local artist to design their cartons and graphics. As the company’s need for capital increased, they resisted venture capitalist financing, which typically requires relinquishing significant control over the company. Instead, it sold stock to Vermont residents, thereby reinforcing the company’s local roots. In 1985 the company formalized its philanthropy by creating the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation. Cohen endowed it with $850,000 worth of his shares, and the company agreed to contribute 7.5 percent of its pretax profits.

For a while the company thrived, but in the early to mid-1990s, Ben & Jerry’s once-stellar financial performance began to lag, even as its other bottom line—social contributions—went from strength to strength. In 1994, the company’s annual report disclosed that sales growth slowed and it had suffered its first financial loss. By 1999 the stock had dropped nearly 50 percent from its peak, because of the company’s weaker financial performance. Some investors argued that the company’s social mission was a luxury it could no longer afford.

Ben & Jerry’s anemic stock performance attracted interest from prospective buyers who thought they could manage the company more profitably. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream tried to buy the company in 1998, but Ben & Jerry’s board refused. Other buyers were rumored to be interested when in early 2000, Cohen and a group of investors (including Body Shop founder Anita Roddick) offered to take the company private at $38 a share—about double the stock price of a few months earlier. 11 Dreyer’s made another bid, which in turn prompted Unilever to offer $43.60 a share. Although Unilever spoke about nurturing the social mission, many observers were skeptical.

Despite reported reluctance, Ben & Jerry’s board announced on April 11, 2000, that it had approved Unilever’s offer. (Melodramatically, some refer to this day as “4/11.”) The transaction, valued at $326 million, was finalized with overwhelming shareholder support. Cohen’s and Greenfield’s shares were worth close to $40 million and $10 million respectively. After more than 20 years as an independent enterprise, Ben & Jerry’s became a wholly owned subsidiary of Unilever.

The deal, according to Ben & Jerry’s securities filings, contained some provisions intended to maintain the corporation’s social mission. Although Unilever controlled the financial and most operational aspects of Ben & Jerry’s, the subsidiary had its own independent board of directors to help provide leadership for the social mission and the brand’s integrity. The new board included Cohen and Greenfield, and its members, not Unilever, would appoint their successors. Moreover, this subsidiary board had the right to sue Unilever, at Unilever’s expense, for breaches of the merger agreement.

Unilever also promised to continue contributing pretax profits to charity, maintain corporate presence in Vermont for at least five years, and refrain from material layoffs for at least two years. Finally, Unilever agreed to contribute $5 million to the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation, award employee bonuses worth a total of $5 million, and dedicate $5 million to assist minority-owned and undercapitalized businesses.

Ben & Jerry’s today is described on Unilever’s website as a “wholly owned autonomous subsidiary of Unilever.” Although Ben & Jerry’s has clearly preserved some of its unique values, most observers are disappointed. Cohen and Greenfield too have reportedly “expressed concerns that the company has shifted away from its original mission of social responsibility.” 12 As was stated in a post on the Stanford Social Innovation Review ’s blog, “[n]obody wants to end up like Ben & Jerry’s.” 13

The Legal Landscape

It is widely believed that corporate law forced Ben & Jerry’s directors to accept Unilever’s rich offer and sell the company. This perception reflects the erroneous view that corporate directors must always act to maximize shareholder value. The best and arguably only support for this view is from Dodge v. Ford , a 1919 decision from the Michigan Supreme Court. That court opined that a “business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders.”

Dodge v. Ford is an anomaly, as other courts have not followed its view of shareholder primacy. In the blunt words of respected Cornell Law School corporate law professor Lynn Stout, “shareholder wealth maximization is not a modern legal principle.” 14 Other state courts have recognized this, including New Jersey’s Supreme Court, which stated that “modern conditions require that corporations acknowledge and discharge social as well as private responsibilities as members of the community within which they operate.” 15

Most state legislatures have resisted the tenets of Dodge v. Ford by enacting statutes that expressly authorize corporate directors to look beyond shareholder wealth maximization. Vermont enacted one, nicknamed “the Ben & Jerry’s law,” after the company had successfully lobbied Vermont’s legislature. Vermont’s “other constituency” statute, as these laws are called, is illustrative: It provides that when directors make decisions they may consider such matters as “the interests of the corporation’s employees, suppliers, creditors, and customers; the economy of the state, region, and nation; [and] community and societal considerations, including those of any community in which any offices or facilities of the corporation are located.” State statutes also give corporations wide latitude to donate profits to charities.

In practice, courts are deferential to board decision making. Under a doctrine called the business judgment rule, unless the directors have a conflict of interest, nearly all board business decisions are beyond judicial review. If there is a potential benefit to shareholders, the courts will not interfere. In this way board decisions advancing a social mission are effectively immune from challenge; there’s no limit to the human mind’s ability to conceive of some benefit accruing to shareholders at some point, even if in the far-distant future. Absent special circumstances, a board’s decision to reject a proposed merger would easily survive a court challenge.

Was Corporate Law the Villain?

By the time Unilever approached Ben & Jerry’s in early 2000, the company was well defended. Its founders, lawyers, and lobbyists had taken many steps to prevent a hostile takeover. In addition to promoting Vermont’s enactment of an “other constituency” statute, the company had adopted a “poison pill.” A poison pill thwarts hostile acquisitions by making them prohibitively expensive. To cancel a poison pill, an acquirer must either find a friendly board or get one elected. Because elections for Ben & Jerry’s board were staggered, an acquirer would need at least two elections scheduled a year apart to elect the board of its choice.

In the case of Ben & Jerry’s, Unilever could not have elected a friendly board, as the two founders and another early employee, director Jeff Furman, effectively controlled enough votes to direct the election of board members. The company had two classes of common stock, one with 10 votes per share and the other with one vote, and between them they held three-quarters of the super-voting stock. (This capital structure was not unique to Ben & Jerry’s. The New York Times Co. and Google, for example, have issued super-voting stock to enable their heirs or founders to maintain control.)

Faced with an entrenched unfriendly board, a would-be acquirer might have gone to court claiming that corporate law required the board to redeem a poison pill. If the court chose to scrutinize the situation carefully, it would have examined whether the board’s failure to redeem a pill was reasonable in relation to the threat that Unilever posed to Ben & Jerry’s. The legal standard is murky, but there have not been many cases where courts have ordered a pill’s redemption.

Finally, Unilever might have asserted that Ben & Jerry’s was for sale and so the board was obliged to sell the company to the highest bidder. This was unlikely for two reasons. First, although Vermont courts have not been presented with this situation, most state courts that have considered it have rejected any such obligation. Second, even if the obligation might theoretically exist, this situation was unlikely to trigger it. Although it’s true that the board was considering a sale, it had not committed itself. If the matter were litigated, most courts would hold that there was no obligation to sell on grounds that neither the breakup nor sale of Ben & Jerry’s was inevitable.

Suppose, however, that a Vermont court had required the board to act to redeem its poison pill or enter into a merger agreement. Cohen and Greenfield still had one more card to play in order to preserve Ben & Jerry’s independence. A board’s decision to redeem a pill merely allows a tender offer to be submitted to shareholders for their approval. It does not mean the offer will succeed. If a majority of shareholders do not agree to tender their shares for sale, the attempted takeover fails. If they did not tender, they retained their stock and their control of the company.

Similarly, even if the board approves a merger, although it’s a legally binding obligation, shareholders must vote in favor of the merger before it becomes effective. Because of the principal stockholders’ ownership of super-voting stock, a hostile acquirer could not have gained voting control of the company or a merger finalized without their approval.

The crucial point is that even if Ben & Jerry’s directors had a fiduciary duty in their capacity as directors to accept or facilitate a transaction, they had no such duty in their capacity as shareholders , and as such were empowered to support or oppose the transaction as they saw fit. As shareholders, they were entitled to enjoy the benefits of selfish ownership, which ironically in this context could have been exercised altruistically to maintain the company’s social mission.

If the super-voting stock were somehow insufficient, Ben & Jerry’s had yet one more defense: an unusual class of preferred stock that held veto rights over mergers and tender offers. The Ben & Jerry’s Foundation owned all of this preferred stock. A takeover of Ben & Jerry’s thus required the foundation’s agreement, and two of the three directors of the foundation were the same principal stockholders. The foundation itself could not be taken over because its board members selected their own successors. In any event, the foundation’s directors were unlikely to be sued because the only party who could sue them was Vermont’s attorney general.

There is one complication in the analysis above. For reasons that are unclear, Ben & Jerry’s organizational documents granted the board the right to redeem the preferred and super-voting stock. It is an interesting question whether a court would ever find that a board’s fiduciary duties required the redemption of these securities in order to eliminate their voting rights. The board would, after all, owe fiduciary duties to the holders of super-voting stock, and a duty of good faith and fair dealing to holders of the preferred stock. Ben & Jerry’s own public statements support this analysis. The company’s securities filings disclosed that its capital structure would make it difficult for a third party to acquire control if the transaction were not supported by the principal stockholders or the foundation.

Nonetheless, this possible loophole shows only that Ben & Jerry’s didn’t get its defenses quite right, not that some flaw in corporate law required the sale. Shrewder lawyering would have made Ben & Jerry’s corporate independence even more unassailable. Corporate law permitted super-voting stock and the granting of a veto to a charitable foundation. Moreover, corporate law allows directors to reject an offer, at least where the directors have not irrevocably committed themselves to a sale.

Although Ben & Jerry’s legal defenses to a forced sale appeared impregnable, the board unanimously agreed to sell the company. Why? Some cynically claim that the founders were ready to cash out. After all, Cohen and Greenfield grossed nearly $50 million from the sale. Moreover, Ben & Jerry’s faced some operational issues that a takeover could solve, such as product distribution. People close to the decision say they were motivated by fear of litigation, followed by a judgment that they would have to satisfy personally. If the directors were held personally liable—a remote possibility—Ben & Jerry’s charter included a provision that would have indemnified them.

Lessons for Social Entrepreneurs

This revised and richer account of Ben & Jerry’s sale offers valuable lessons for aspiring social entrepreneurs. The legal consequences of an entrepreneur’s choice of for-profit organizational form are likely to be smaller than often portrayed. Financial success is also essential to staying is control. Most important, the chief safeguard for maintaining the social mission is the people in control.

A hybrid legal form is neither necessary nor sufficient to maintain a social enterprise | Although the publicly traded corporate form can be challenging, many businesses employing it have pursued social missions with vigor and endurance. The list includes prominent firms such as The New York Times Company, Whole Foods, Starbucks, and the Body Shop (before it encountered operational problems unrelated to its form), and less well-known companies like EV Rentals and Interface Carpets. These firms use several strategies, legal and nonlegal, to ward off hostile takeovers. Foundations and super-voting stock are not uncommon. In some cases, new forms include provisions that could make an enterprise’s social mission harder to dislodge, yet such provisions are used by conventional for-profit corporations as well.

Financial success is critical to maintaining control | Ben & Jerry’s early financial successes enabled its founders to negotiate powerful control mechanisms from a position of strength. Ultimately the most important change at Ben & Jerry’s was not its directors’ legal ability to resist takeovers, which indeed increased over time. Rather, it was the declining health of the business itself. In its final years as an independent company, Ben & Jerry’s sales, financial performance, and stock price had stagnated, and the company faced various operational challenges.

Successful and promising companies are better positioned to take on new investors while retaining controlling positions for the founders. When Google went public in 2004, for example, with super-voting stock for the insiders, the company candidly admitted that public shareholders’ voting rights would have little impact on the company’s direction. Facebook’s 2012 initial public offering of stock allowed its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, to retain control through a combination of super-voting stock and contractual arrangements with other shareholders. (Interestingly, both companies also asserted that providing services, rather than making a profit, was their top priority.)

Although it is true that even successful companies are bought, it is also true that shareholders tend to back successful management. Put differently, takeovers often result from poor stock performance, which usually results from weak financial performance. Investment bankers commonly observe that the best defense is a high stock price. Had Ben & Jerry’s remained successful, its directors would have felt more comfortable rebuffing offers, as they had done several times before.

It’s the people! | Ben & Jerry’s defenses made the company virtually impregnable to hostile takeover. Yet in the end, Ben & Jerry’s directors chose to accept a generous offer, even at a cost to the social mission, rather than allow the company’s defenses to be tested. Anti-takeover protections are only as effective as the people positioned to use them.

Regardless of the for-profit organizational form in which a business is housed, people who exercise control over the company will usually be able to thwart its social mission. One oft-repeated objection to new forms is that they aren’t much more effective at screening out conventional for-profit people and businesses with conventional for-profit souls. So long as the organizational structure is adequate, it will be the decision makers who make the difference. The surest way to maintain a business’ social mission is to put committed people in charge. (Cohen and Greenfield attempted to achieve this by negotiating the creation of an independent and robust board for the post-acquisition subsidiary.)

When critics claim corporations are inherently pathological, they mean that they encourage antisocial decision making by their employees. Executives at hybrid forms likely feel less pressure to maximize profits at society’s expense. Yet the causation is uncertain: Does a virtuous form make directors more virtuous, or do the virtuous seek out businesses so formed?

Conclusions

Because new forms are being represented as correctives to the cause of Ben & Jerry’s sale, it’s critical to identify the true causes and manner of what happened. Hence the irony. The full account of that sale does not make the case for new forms; rather, it illustrates how social entrepreneurs can use existing forms to protect an enterprise’s social mission—even if they choose not to assert such protections. Proponents of benefit corporations and the like should be pressed to identify real and unavoidable instances of the Ben & Jerry’s scenario, or stop using it to demonstrate the dire need for such forms.

Of course, even if new forms for social enterprises are not legally necessary, some structural innovations might prove useful nonetheless. A standard form, “off-the-rack” legal entity designed expressly for social enterprise would presumably save rising social entrepreneurs the trouble of (re)discovering tested solutions to its perennial challenges. A distinct legal form might also convey information and influence perception, for example, by assuring investors and potential investors that the company’s managers will not pursue profits über alles , and perhaps cultivating consumer loyalty to a social enterprise brand.

To date, a significant amount of resources has been devoted to developing social enterprise forms and lobbying states to enact them. As an exercise in political entrepreneurship, this strategy has produced results: Eight states have L3Cs, seven states have benefit corporations, and one has a flexible purpose corporation. It is an open question, however, whether this approach fosters more social innovation than would otherwise occur, or promotes it more effectively.

Social entrepreneurship might benefit from states competing to become the Delaware of an emerging “social enterprise law.” At the same time, fueling this competition yields diminishing returns. When a form has been enacted in one state, it is available to residents of every state. You don’t have to live or operate in Vermont to set up a Vermont L3C. What then is the point of pressing more states to enact the L3C , which is primarily intended to attract capital from relatively sophisticated investors—namely, grantmaking foundations?

We should remember that what really matters is not the organizational form but rather the formation and flourishing of social enterprises. It remains to be seen whether new forms will nurture new social enterprise icons or be an unhelpful (but tasty!) distraction. By moving beyond the received wisdom on the Ben & Jerry’s sale, we can better focus our energy on where it will do the most good.

Support  SSIR ’s coverage of cross-sector solutions to global challenges.  Help us further the reach of innovative ideas.  Donate today .

Read more stories by Antony Page & Robert A. Katz .

SSIR.org and/or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and to our better understanding of user needs. By closing this banner, scrolling this page, clicking a link or continuing to otherwise browse this site, you agree to the use of cookies.