Ben & Jerry’s nauseating woke activism risks melting Unilever’s ice cream dreams for good

Consumer goods giant’s plans to sell division may meet resistance because of history of do-goodery

At last, some bold decisionmaking from Unilever, a company that has become synonymous with corporate drift and turned mediocrity into an art form. Not only that, but a move that could provide a much-needed boost to London’s dwindling status as a global financial centre.

The consumer goods Goliath has decided to hive off its ice cream operations, paving the way for an entirely new listed company to emerge on the London Stock Exchange at a time when the City is reeling from an exodus of top names.

With a predicted value of £15bn for a business that includes big brands such as Wall’s and Magnum, the FTSE 100 should get a new constituent that resonates strongly with investors.

There are suggestions that the Unilever board could choose to float the division in New York or Amsterdam instead – but that shouldn’t even be a consideration.

Nothing about Unilever is American, and a previous attempt to deepen its presence in the Netherlands at the expense of the UK ended in a humiliating about-turn and the swift exit of chief executive Paul Polman.

Still, it may not even get to that, thanks to a potentially gigantic poison pill in the form of the noisy folk at Ben & Jerry’s, who have a disproportionate amount to say about world affairs given that its primary contribution to the planet is ice cream.

As Home Office sources reportedly remarked after the company felt compelled to comment on Britain’s immigration policy, this is an outfit that makes “overpriced junk food”. So what gives it the right to be so high and mighty? On that occasion, its comments weren’t just nauseating, they were hypocritical, too. It took years of migrant dairy workers on its Vermont farms complaining of low wages, punishing hours and poor housing before a company that thinks its products “can change the world” signed up to an initiative guaranteeing better treatment.

It says something that Ben & Jerry’s persistent outspokenness has been a constant thorn in the side of Unilever, an organisation that has repeatedly prioritised woolly causes above the more mundane day-to-day business of making a profit. At times it’s hard to tell whether Unilever is a commercial concern or an NGO but Ben & Jerry’s takes the muddled do-goodery to the absolute extreme.

It is somewhat baffling that Unilever has failed to cast adrift a brand that has always possessed the potential to go off the deep end. A big part of the problem is that Unilever agreed to allow Ben & Jerry’s to have its own independent board when it bought the business in 2000 making it impossible to rein in. It’s a decision that looks horribly naive with hindsight.

Yet most other companies would be quick to rid themselves of any rogue elements. Unilever owns a portfolio of 400 different products, which it has slimmed down on numerous occasions in recent years. Why hasn’t Ben & Jerry’s been among those jettisoned?

It is just another example of a poorly managed corporation failing to take action when a major issue presents itself. Unilever had the perfect opportunity to cut ties with Ben & Jerry’s under previous chief executive Alan Jope after it felt compelled to speak out against American foreign policy after Russia invaded Ukraine.

Ben & Jerry’s concern? Not Vladimir Putin’s slaughter of thousands of innocent Ukrainians, nor solidarity with the people of Ukraine – but Washington’s decision to bolster security in the region by sending more troops to Eastern Europe. Joe Biden was “fanning the flames of war”.

It wasn’t just an outrageous claim, it was also terribly timed. Jope was under serious pressure to restore credibility after an ill-judged blockbuster takeover bid for half of GSK was emphatically rejected by shareholders. The distraction of a public relations fiasco caused by insensitive and ill-informed colleagues thousands of miles away threatened to be hugely undermining.

That was the moment to set Ben & Jerry’s free. Yet Unilever’s ability to act was constrained by its own shoddy decisions over the war in Ukraine. By choosing to keep doing business in Russia, it is hardly in a position to take the moral high ground when it comes to the stance of others.

In principle, a stand-alone company housing some of the best known ice cream brands on the planet is a tasty proposition. It has steady turnover of nearly £7bn and with a whopping 20pc of the market, is the industry’s number one player. Unilever would also finally get to offload a perennial problem child in the process – in theory, at least.

However, given Ben & Jerry’s track record of woefully misplaced activism and a promise from the chairman to continue its campaigning under new ownership, would it be such a shock if potential investors considered the brand too toxic and gave it a wide berth? As proven by the rapid retreat from UK equities, fund managers are a risk-averse bunch these days.

At the very least, the business might be given a “woke discount” that depresses the share price.

Spin-offs usually invite takeover interest, too, which might melt Unilever’s ice cream dreams once and for all. CVC bought Unilever’s tea division for €4.5bn (£3.9bn) in 2021 and KKR forked out £6bn for its margarine business in 2017.

There are reports that Unilever is trying to drum up interest among private equity buyers – precisely the kind of owner that is likely to leave the self-righteous souls on Ben & Jerry’s independent board choking on all that chocolate fudge brownie.