Governance changes force out three Ben & Jerry’s board members, deepening a fierce battle over control
A simmering conflict at Ben & Jerry’s has escalated sharply after three members of the company’s independent board were effectively pushed out under a new set of governance rules, reigniting a bitter dispute over control, independence and corporate power.
The ice cream maker confirmed that recent changes to its governance structure mean three board members are no longer eligible to continue in their roles. Central to the change is a newly imposed nine-year term limit for board service, a rule that immediately impacts several long-standing figures at the heart of the company’s leadership.
Among those affected is board chair Anuradha Mittal, who had previously made clear she had no intention of stepping down despite mounting pressure. The move has been interpreted by critics as a decisive attempt to reshape the board and weaken its authority.
Ben & Jerry’s co-founder Ben Cohen responded with fury, accusing the company’s owner of orchestrating what he described as a deliberate attempt to dismantle the board’s independence. He labelled the changes a “blatant power grab”, arguing they were designed to strip the board of its legal authority and silence dissent.
His comments mark the latest flashpoint in a long-running row that has increasingly played out in public. At the core of the dispute is the future of Ben & Jerry’s independent board, which was set up to preserve the brand’s social mission after it was acquired by a larger corporate parent.
For years, the board has acted as a guardian of the company’s outspoken stance on social and political issues. That role has frequently brought it into conflict with its owner, particularly over how far the brand should go in using its global platform for activism.
The introduction of term limits may appear, on the surface, to be a standard corporate governance measure. However, opponents argue the timing and impact of the change tell a different story. By forcing out experienced board members, they say, the move risks hollowing out the very independence the board was designed to protect.
Embed from Getty Images
Cohen has been one of the most vocal critics, warning that the changes undermine the founding principles on which the company was built. He has repeatedly insisted that Ben & Jerry’s independence is not symbolic, but a legal and ethical commitment that should not be eroded by corporate manoeuvring.
The company itself has not publicly framed the changes as punitive. Instead, the governance update has been presented as a formal restructuring, aligning board practices with defined limits on tenure. Supporters of the move argue that regular turnover can bring fresh perspectives and strengthen accountability.
Yet the backlash suggests the dispute runs far deeper than questions of governance mechanics. The row reflects a broader struggle over who ultimately controls the direction of the brand and how much autonomy the independent board truly holds.
Ben & Jerry’s has long traded on its reputation as a values-driven business, unafraid to take strong positions on global issues. That identity has been central to its appeal, but it has also placed the company at the centre of repeated clashes with its corporate owner.
With three board members now sidelined, the balance of power appears to be shifting. Critics fear the changes could set a precedent, making it easier to marginalise voices that challenge corporate priorities.
For employees, customers and supporters of the brand, the dispute raises uncomfortable questions. Can Ben & Jerry’s continue to present itself as fiercely independent if its board can be reshaped through governance rules? Or does this moment mark a turning point in the company’s identity?
As the fallout continues, neither side shows signs of backing down. What began as a disagreement over governance has evolved into a full-blown confrontation over control, principle and the future of one of the world’s most recognisable ethical brands.
For now, the row remains unresolved. But with trust eroding and accusations hardening, the struggle over Ben & Jerry’s independence looks set to deepen, leaving the company’s famously sweet image overshadowed by an increasingly bitter internal battle.