Strategy & Leadership
- Corporate purpose demands governance alignment. Activist brands inside multinationals require clear decision rights and escalation structures — not just an independent board.
- CEO activism is high risk, high visibility. When internal ideological alignment drives activism, it can strengthen brand authenticity — but severe misalignment with shareholders and governments can end a CEO's tenure.
- Stakeholder power shifts over time. Effective non-market strategy requires continuous reassessment of who holds power, legitimacy, and urgency — and whether the CEO is listening to the right voices.
This case has won the Outstanding Compact Case Competition 2026 with The Case Centre. In this case, Nils Plambeck examines the governance breakdown between Ben & Jerry’s and its parent company, Unilever. It explores how purpose-driven activism, when embedded within a multinational structure, can escalate from brand differentiation to strategic crisis — forcing leaders to confront the limits of autonomy, accountability, and shareholder power.
When Corporate Purpose Meets Shareholder Power
"We exist to do more than just sell ice cream." — David Stever, Ben & Jerry's CEO
"Our shareholders are not paying us to start diplomatic conflicts." — Unilever Executive
Two quotes and one irreconcilable tension. In March 2025, after a series of escalating public confrontations — from climate justice and LGBTQ+ rights to the Israel-Palestine conflict — Ben & Jerry's CEO David Stever, who had worked for the company since 1988, was dismissed by parent company Unilever.
Ben & Jerry's was acquired by Unilever in 2000 under a unique agreement establishing an independent board to safeguard its social mission. Yet that structural safeguard became the fault line of a governance crisis: Ben & Jerry's activism triggered U.S. state divestments from Unilever, shareholder lawsuits, and legal battles implicating the entire parent portfolio. In March 2024, Unilever announced plans to spin off its ice cream division — including Ben & Jerry's — by the end of 2025. Whether strategic simplification or an exit from a politically combustible subsidiary, the split left a fundamental question unanswered.
Activism Inside the Multinational Corporation
This case lets students explore a fundamental governance question: How can large multinational corporations manage purpose-driven brands whose activism creates strategic and political exposure?
- The case applies the Stakeholder Salience Model to reveal a critical asymmetry: Stever enjoyed strong alignment with Ben & Jerry's employees, its independent board, progressive consumers, and NGOs — yet was severely misaligned with Unilever's shareholders, activist investors, and governmental actors. Those were precisely the stakeholders with the power to end his tenure.
- The case challenges students to move from analysis to action: designing a step-by-step Pre-Engagement Protocol — a Go/No-Go decision framework for when and how to take a public stand — covering mission fit, stakeholder mapping, legal and reputational risk, and decision authority.
Sources
Business case and accompanying Teaching Note: Ben & Jerry's vs. Unilever: Serving Ice Cream, Cherry Topping and Geopolitics? By Nils Plambeck, Associate Professor of Strategic Management, HEC Paris case has been published with Harvard Business Publishing and The Case Centre. This case has won the Outstanding Compact Case Competition 2026 with The Case Centre.