Ex‑Ben & Jerry’s chair alleges Magnum threatened to smear her as board overhaul unfolds

Anuradha Mittal, the former chair of Ben & Jerry’s independent board, has alleged that Magnum Ice Cream Company threatened to publish defamatory statements about her if she did not resign, as the owner of the Vermont ice cream brand proceeds with a major governance overhaul. Mittal, who led the board for seven years, told the BBC that the dispute over the brand’s independence and its social mission had intensified in recent years and that she faced pressure to curb public commentary on human rights and other issues.

Magnum, which now controls Ben & Jerry’s after Unilever spun off its ice cream business earlier this month, said the steps taken were designed to strengthen governance and safeguard the brand’s mission. The company announced a nine‑year limit for directors on Ben & Jerry’s board and said Mittal, along with two other directors, would be required to leave following an external investigation that Magnum commissioned. The company also said its audit of the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation identified material deficiencies in financial controls, governance and other compliance policies, including conflicts of interest.

Mittal, founder of the Oakland Institute, described the friction as part of an ongoing push by Magnum to tighten control over the brand’s social activism and public-facing voice. She said the alleged smear attempt was part of a broader strategy to muzzle critics of what she called Magnum’s overreach. In remarks to the BBC, she said she had been offered a prominent role in a multimillion‑dollar Unilever‑funded nonprofit if she would resign, an offer she deemed inappropriate and declined.

The governance changes come as Magnum positions itself as the world’s largest ice cream maker, with brands such as Cornetto, Wall’s and Carte D’Or. Magnum said the actions were intended to preserve the brand’s historical social mission and safeguard its essential integrity, adding that Ben & Jerry’s would continue to advocate for a range of causes in line with its mission and values while maintaining a nonpartisan public stance.

The timing and nature of the dispute reflect a longer arc of tension over Ben & Jerry’s corporate structure and its social commitments since the brand’s inception. Ben & Jerry’s was owned by Unilever from 2000, but the brand retained an independent board and the right to pursue its social mission. The relationship has long been a flashpoint, including a 2021 decision not to sell products in Israeli-occupied territories and the subsequent sale of the Israeli operation to a local licensee. In October, Ben Cohen publicly suggested that Magnum’s ownership was undermining the brand’s mission, and co‑founder Jerry Greenfield, who left the company in September, said the social mission was being stifled. Cohen has since criticized Magnum as not fit to own the company.

Magnum’s spokesperson defended the governance actions as necessary to align oversight with the brand’s stated purpose. They said the steps aim to preserve and enhance the brand’s social mission and ensure governance reflects its three‑part mission—product, economic and social—without compromising the brand’s values. The spokesperson added that Ben & Jerry’s continues to advocate for causes and use its platform to push for social justice, a stance Magnum says it supports as well.