What happened when a values-driven ice cream company met corporate finance.
It’s time to talk about women’s economics with attitude. It’s time to laugh at what is often absurd and call out what is dangerous. By focusing on voices not typically part of mainstream man-to-man economic discourse, Women Unscrewing Screwnomics will bring you news of hopeful and practical changes and celebrate an economy waged as life—not as war.
I live in Vermont and am old enough to have stood with crowds outside the converted gas station Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield made into their first ice cream shop in Burlington. In 1978, the two had invested just $12,000. Soon, a smaller shop in Vermont’s capital appeared where I live, a place where memories brewed as one of my family’s favorite treats in town, mystified by the seemingly infinite amount of flavors.
We enjoyed the long lines, enabling us to say hello to neighbors and friends, catch up on gossip, local politics and review different flavors. Over the years Ben & Jerry invented over 500 different taste treats often with hippy-dippy political names like: Change Is Brewing; Pecan Resist; Empower Mint; Imagine Whirled Peace, and Yes Pecan!
Ben & Jerry were major players in the business movement called “caring capitalism,” redefining profit to include improving the quality of life of a broad community on a local, national and international level. By the 1990s, their sales were more than $100 million, birthing the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation to encourage social and environmental justice by donating 7.5 percent of the company’s yearly pretax profits.
The company maintained a salary ratio that limited pay for the top executive: A strict internal policy called the Big Cheese dictated that the highest-paid executive could not earn more than seven times the salary of the lowest-paid full-time employee. The 7:1 ratio encouraged closer teamwork, social awareness and a generosity of spirit and fun. Employees helped give away millions of free cones as a thank you and participated in decisions about B&J Foundation’s grant awards.
David Korten—a former Harvard Business School professor, fellow traveler in the socially responsible business movement, author and longtime critic of corporate globalization—has examined the many ways that “the institutions of money” undermine democracy and environmental sustainability.
Korten says our “cutting edge” economic system most values stock and money, rewarding cost “efficiency.” Firms that can shift their costs to others are rewarded, while socially responsible enterprises are labeled “inefficient.” If you’re donating portions of your profits to workers and the wider community, that means less money for financial returns to shareholders.
In 2000, Unilever, an Anglo-Dutch conglomerate globally distributing about 400 different brands, bought Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Holdings, Inc. for $326 million. The terms of sale included an independent CEO and board of directors that would maintain the Vermont company’s social mission and brand integrity, protect employees and sustain purchasing agreements with local, socially minded suppliers.
Unilever also promised to continue to donate 7.5 percent of Ben & Jerry’s profits, plus $5 million a year to Ben & Jerry’s Foundation, dedicated to supporting progressive and educational projects.
But from the beginning, the business relationship was fraught, a marriage considered by many Vermonters to be mismatched and doomed. Nonetheless, the company remained in Vermont and continued to draw attention to social causes, lobbying for same-sex marriage, educating about global warming, helping dairy farmers in Vermont and the Netherlands, and taking a stand against Alaskan oil drilling.
Underneath the veil, issues that took root from the start began to erupt. B&J accused global Unilever of censoring its social statements, going so far as to sue them in 2021 for silencing their position on Palestine and more recently on Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian protestor arrested at Columbia University.
What happened to Unilever’s original purchase agreement to donate 7.5 percent of brand profits plus $5 million a year to the foundation? It’s simple, really: They got rid of it, perhaps hoping that by making its machinations as complex as possible, few would notice.
In 2025, Jerry Greenfield resigned from the company, citing continued pressure to stay silent on issues such as abortion rights, climate change and universal healthcare. Their vaunted independence had vanished, he claimed. Notably, the final straw may have been Unilever’s surprise firing of their homegrown CEO David Stever, allegedly for advocating on social media for Black Lives Matter and posting criticisms of Donald Trump’s anti-diversity, equity and inclusion policies.
Today, if you were to go to Ben & Jerry’s Foundation to apply for a grant, you’d find that after 40 years of supporting grassroots social change, they’ve suspended their operations until the end of this year—or, they say, until a positive outcome in an ongoing legal battle.
What happened to Unilever’s original purchase agreement to donate 7.5 percent of brand profits plus $5 million a year to the foundation? It’s simple, really: They got rid of it, perhaps hoping that by making its machinations as complex as possible, few would notice.
In March of 2024, Unilever went public with a long-planned “de-merger” of all its ice cream brand holdings. They announced they were cutting 7,500 jobs, focused on making Unilever “higher performing.” They would “spin off” their eight global ice cream brands, including Magnum, Talenti, Breyers and Ben & Jerry’s.
Unilever’s divestment and new merger of all its ice cream companies was completed by July of 2025. By the end of that year, The Magnum Ice Cream Company, or TMICC at the stock market, launched an IPO (initial public offering), offering new investment opportunities, rather than selling their new conglomerate to a private buyer. This allowed Unilever shareholders to receive direct shares in the new independent company.
Unilever has a webpage explaining the TMICC demerger. Its landing page features a six-paragraph disclaimer. I’m no lawyer, but I recognize legal writing that appears to excuse Unilever decision-makers, called by them “The Group,” from just about anything they ever claimed or did.
Thus, it was not our dear Unilever, but The Magnum Ice Cream Company that cut off Ben & Jerry’s Foundation funding and ordered it to close its Vermont office doors by July 15, 2026.
We use our power, our privilege, our platform and our relationship with our fans to advocate for progressive social change. … We’re never gonna stop trying to dismantle white supremacy, end the climate crisis or fight for our democracy.
Ben & Jerry’s on TikTok, 2025
In January of 2025, Ben & Jerry’s had posted a defiant video that got 10 million views on TikTok, defending the company’s progressive politics. This prompted some MAGA influencers to threaten a boycott that never much materialized. But now Friends of Real Ben & Jerry’s have organized a boycott of US brands owned by The Magnum Ice Cream Company—Talenti, Magnum, Popsicle, Breyers, Klondike, Yasso and Good Humor—for TMICC’s attempts to silence them.
By now you may be wondering: Exactly what flavor is this Magnum?
Originally Magnum was described as “a premium hand-held ice cream with a thick chocolate shell,” first developed in Denmark by Frisko, another former Unilever brand. It’s what you and I might call an ice cream bar, but its fame came from a thick-enough shell that it loudly cracked when you bit into it.
Maybe Unilever’s naming its financial engineering of global ice cream, Magnum, is intended to carry a brand message. But what are we to make of their choosing, as namesake, a trademark pistol designed to fire cartridges more powerful than its caliber?
According to Entrepreneur United Kingdom, “Unilever’s Sustainability Strategy Went Wrong.” A long time ago. When Unilever first bought B&J, they were the gold standard for sustainable business. They were considered proof that companies could “do well by doing good,” with purpose-driven capital.
“Yet in recent years, a more sobering picture has emerged. Unilever’s’ growth faltered, their share-price stagnated, and investor patience wore thin,” says author Goutam Challagalla. What was needed, their new CEOs came to believe, he said, was not “sustainability as ideology,” but a new kind of “discipline.”
Impatient investors, that top 10 percent with spare millions to exploit, who want their money to make more money more quickly, needed more.
So, Unilever began to chop itself into more pieces. Unilever’s first spin-off, TMICC, The Magnum Ice Cream Company, debuted as a new standalone publicly listed company in December 2025.
Unilever’s second independent piece, according to their news release in March 2026, joined its Unilever Foods piece with McCormick & Co., to “create a scaled, global flavor powerhouse, bringing together two industry-leading, culturally aligned foods businesses with strong momentum, superior top line growth, and enhanced value creation.”
Those rather bloviated claims further explain: “The separation … will position Unilever as a leading pure play HPC company with £39 billion in revenues.”
That translates to more than $52 billion.
A ”pure play” is a publicly traded company that focuses on a single product or industry. HPC is finance-speak for High-Performance Computing that uses powerful hardware, software and cloud infrastructure to solve global problems, train AI models and perform advanced simulations for financial outcomes.
It’s hard to imagine anything less flavorful or socially responsible.
Unless it’s what you may already find in your grocery’s freezers. Familiar ice cream brands are now stocking what’s labeled “frozen dairy dessert.” If you’re lactose-intolerant, some of these might be a wise choice. But be sure to read the label: Plant-based milk products may have higher sugar and fat content. (Here’s a Harvard Health link to help you navigate the overwhelming types of frozen options available.)
Some products aim for that new “sustainability discipline,” combining customer affordability with high returns for investors with labeling such as “non-dairy,” “lower calorie” or “carb-smart.” Some may replace cream with cheaper water, mono/diglycerides, polysorbate 80, and cellulose gum to mimic real dairy. Cellulose gum is typically made from cotton fiber or wood pulp.
You can do your own kitchen test to discover if you’ve bought this. Real ice cream with 10 percent cream will melt into a delicious puddle at room temperature. Processed frozen desserts with stabilizers will hold their shape, weeping water thanks to all that cellulose.
It’s like the difference between local, yummy, homemade shops, like Ben & Jerry’s where everybody knows you, and the more “disciplined” TMICC way of doing global business. The latter’s ideology demands that profits grow for the investor class, whatever it takes.
Reuters‘ recent report, that TMICC’s falling stock prices have attracted circling private equity vultures, feels like a sad justice. Blackstone and CD&R are both reportedly exploring bids for a buyout, though of course neither would comment.
No one can financially discipline more cruelly than private equity can.
So will ice cream, fun and basic decency outlast legalized business bullshit? I believe it will. Our cravings for Empower-Mint and Whirled Peace grow increasingly inescapable, and Yes Pecan!
Well before AI, Crypto and MAGA, David Korten predicted people’s growing awareness of the sticky, capitalist trap we’re in. In his 2006 book, The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community, he wrote:
“Corporate globalists and the corporate empires they serve may be at the cutting edge of technological innovation, but socially and environmentally, they are relics of a bygone era of imperial colonial rule, elite privilege, and state-sanctioned plunder.”
*
A note from Ms. editors: We want to hear from you for The Majority, a new campaign collecting stories about how reproductive freedom has enabled readers to build the lives they want and need. Poll after poll shows a majority of Americans support reproductive healthcare access. Yet public debate overlooks the lives shaped by abortion access, contraception, IVF, miscarriage care, maternal healthcare or comprehensive sex education—countless women who chose to pursue an education, have children, not have children, protect their health and chart their own future. Add your voice and complete the sentence: “Access to reproductive choices gave me the freedom to….” Together, these stories will help show not only why reproductive freedom remains a majority value, but also what it makes possible.
