Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Bernie Sanders speaks from an ice cream podium and Twitter erupts [View all]beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)13. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
It's not like he's at a podium for a big pharmaceutical company, Trump hotels or Goldman Sachs.
Ben and Jerry's treats it employees better than the vast majority of corporations, they pay more than double the minimum wage, offer excellent benefits and remain committed to progressive causes. Why wouldn't they support Bernie and why wouldn't he support one of Vermont's most progressive companies?
How Ben & Jerrys Got Bought Out Without Selling Out
When people hear the name Ben and Jerrys, they think of three things: First, the high-quality ice cream, heavy on the mix-ins and the butterfat; secondSachs, the pun-riddled names of flavors such as Cherry Garcia, Karamel Sutra or Americone Dream; and third, the companys longstanding social, environmental and corporate justice missions.
But when co-founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield agreed to sell the business in 2000 to Unilever, a multinational food giant, plenty of people expected that those missions wouldnt survive. To a remarkable degree, they were mistaken.
In a recent interview with Katherine Klein, vice dean of the Wharton Social Impact Initiative, current Ben & Jerrys CEO Jostein Solheim talked about how the ice cream company has managed to hold onto its original social missions, despite its absorption by Unilever.
An edited transcript of the conversation appears below.
Katherine Klein: Were here to talk about the social mission of the company and how you have maintained it even as Ben & Jerrys has become part of Unilever.
Jostein Solheim: Ben & Jerrys is now 36 years old as a mission-led company. I think the key thing in the whole transition to one shareholder from multiple shareholders was a governance structure that was put in place. Unilever was very visionary in recognizing that it says Ben & Jerry on the packaging. If Ben and Jerry go out and say, Well, this is all not really true anymore and (social justice is) not a mission of the company anymore, that would really undermine the value of the acquisition.
Klein: So Unilever acquired Ben & Jerrys in 2000, and this was a company where the social mission was baked into the brand.
Solheim: That is integral to how we do business.
Klein: And Unilever saw this and its investors saw this from the beginning, and saw value?
Solheim: Yes. Thats why they and the then-sitting board together agreed to set up an independent board of directors that acts basically like our benefit corporation director. They are responsible for the social mission, for the integrity of the Ben & Jerrys brand, our policies. They even get involved in basic things like wage-setting in the factories, where we have a livable wage policy that is overseen by the board of directors. And the directors are self-selecting. Unilever appoints just two seats out of 11 board members.
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/ben-jerrys-got-bought-without-selling/
When people hear the name Ben and Jerrys, they think of three things: First, the high-quality ice cream, heavy on the mix-ins and the butterfat; secondSachs, the pun-riddled names of flavors such as Cherry Garcia, Karamel Sutra or Americone Dream; and third, the companys longstanding social, environmental and corporate justice missions.
But when co-founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield agreed to sell the business in 2000 to Unilever, a multinational food giant, plenty of people expected that those missions wouldnt survive. To a remarkable degree, they were mistaken.
In a recent interview with Katherine Klein, vice dean of the Wharton Social Impact Initiative, current Ben & Jerrys CEO Jostein Solheim talked about how the ice cream company has managed to hold onto its original social missions, despite its absorption by Unilever.
An edited transcript of the conversation appears below.
Katherine Klein: Were here to talk about the social mission of the company and how you have maintained it even as Ben & Jerrys has become part of Unilever.
Jostein Solheim: Ben & Jerrys is now 36 years old as a mission-led company. I think the key thing in the whole transition to one shareholder from multiple shareholders was a governance structure that was put in place. Unilever was very visionary in recognizing that it says Ben & Jerry on the packaging. If Ben and Jerry go out and say, Well, this is all not really true anymore and (social justice is) not a mission of the company anymore, that would really undermine the value of the acquisition.
Klein: So Unilever acquired Ben & Jerrys in 2000, and this was a company where the social mission was baked into the brand.
Solheim: That is integral to how we do business.
Klein: And Unilever saw this and its investors saw this from the beginning, and saw value?
Solheim: Yes. Thats why they and the then-sitting board together agreed to set up an independent board of directors that acts basically like our benefit corporation director. They are responsible for the social mission, for the integrity of the Ben & Jerrys brand, our policies. They even get involved in basic things like wage-setting in the factories, where we have a livable wage policy that is overseen by the board of directors. And the directors are self-selecting. Unilever appoints just two seats out of 11 board members.
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/ben-jerrys-got-bought-without-selling/
The right loves to claim Ben and Jerry's "sold out" and constantly uses them as an example of so-called 'liberal hypocrisy' when its founders speak out about progressive causes like social justice, climate change and corporate greed.
But I don't know any liberals who actually agree with them.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
166 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Unilever and F-16s are funny enough without bringing Trumps cabinet into it...
bettyellen
Apr 2017
#16
Except the podium doesn't say Unilever or Lockheed Martin. It says Ben and Jerry's.
beam me up scottie
Apr 2017
#18
come on, Ben And Jerry's? You have to admit that's pretty ridiculous to see irony there. And they
JCanete
Apr 2017
#19
"everyone assumes it's a homespun thing and not connected- god forbid!- to a corporation!"
beam me up scottie
Apr 2017
#25
Yeah, that happens. Ben and Jerry's has obviously maintained their voice and personality. And
JCanete
Apr 2017
#27
Exactly. Ben and Jerry took plenty of heat from the right for their criticism of Citizen's United.
beam me up scottie
Apr 2017
#34
Sold up but not sold out, Ben and Jerry are still the poster boys for fair trade:
beam me up scottie
Apr 2017
#134
At least you admit that words mean things. Like Bernie's moral war on corporations.
R B Garr
Apr 2017
#166
Yeah, we've been hearing for years that if you take corporate money from or pal around with
betsuni
Apr 2017
#29
that is not what you've been hearing for years, unless you're talking about your own echo-chamber
JCanete
Apr 2017
#138
okay, so you never were interested in backing up your assertion. Just throw shit out there then.
JCanete
Apr 2017
#142
Ben and Jerry are no longer a "company", they're a division of a European conglomerate.
George II
Apr 2017
#133
Unless they've redefined the word 'company' Ben and Jerry's still fits the definition.
beam me up scottie
Apr 2017
#135
Before the 'Ben and Jerry's sold out to an EVIL corporation' talking points start flying:
beam me up scottie
Apr 2017
#12
Well thank god theyre not "establishment" like Planned Parenthood or Naral, LOL
bettyellen
Apr 2017
#21
Well Ben and Jerry's certainly isn't in the same league as Goldman Sachs.
beam me up scottie
Apr 2017
#23
So some corporations should have "free speech" and some non profits should STFU- got it!
bettyellen
Apr 2017
#24
Did someone actually say that or did you make it up? What does the 1st amendment have to do with it?
beam me up scottie
Apr 2017
#28
Meaningless throw away lines like anti-liberal talking points about progressive companies.
beam me up scottie
Apr 2017
#36
I've been told again and again that taking ANY corporate money is corrupting the candidate....
bettyellen
Apr 2017
#38
When discussing corporate influence in politics I think Goldman Sachs is relevant.
beam me up scottie
Apr 2017
#39
Not buying it, sorry. Looks like you threw out Goldman Sachs to browbeat people.
R B Garr
Apr 2017
#57
Yes I can see why you want to think facts about Goldman Sachs are irrelevant.
beam me up scottie
Apr 2017
#60
You are clearly the own with false equivalency. Bordering on desperation, actually.
R B Garr
Apr 2017
#98
Actually I used Goldman Sachs as an example of a corporation that buys influence.
beam me up scottie
Apr 2017
#99
You are contradicting Bernie. Corporations are evil. Ben & Jerry's is a corporation.
R B Garr
Apr 2017
#105
And yet you can't provide a link to him saying all corporations are evil?
beam me up scottie
Apr 2017
#108
LOL, I knew this part was coming. The part where words have to appear exactly
R B Garr
Apr 2017
#115
So Bernie never said corporations are evil? Well that makes your point moot, doesn't it?
beam me up scottie
Apr 2017
#119
Did I say Bernie "never spoke of corporations"? Can you post a link or the text?
beam me up scottie
Apr 2017
#126
lol, I wonder what holes you will dig if I said Bernie demonized corporations.
R B Garr
Apr 2017
#136
No - you didn't, you claimed Bernie said "corporations are evil". Twice.
beam me up scottie
Apr 2017
#137
Moving the goalposts again. You claimed he said "corporations are evil".
beam me up scottie
Apr 2017
#140
I do! Can you show me the post where someone said that? I want to laugh too!
beam me up scottie
Apr 2017
#114
Isn't that the argument you're making here by claiming the photo is ironic?
beam me up scottie
Apr 2017
#42
It appears to be a more reliable predictor of when exceptions to "the rules" suddenly appear.
bettyellen
Apr 2017
#48
It's not supporting the company- its receiving support from huge corporations....
bettyellen
Apr 2017
#50
How is speaking from a Ben and Jerry's podium 'receiving support from a huge corporation'?
beam me up scottie
Apr 2017
#52
Except we're discussing Ben and Jerry's, not Unilever. They're not the same thing.
beam me up scottie
Apr 2017
#61
This whole thing is hilarious. When did Ben and Jerry's become evil?
beam me up scottie
Apr 2017
#63
Actually I did since I mentioned it several times. But they're still not the same thing.
beam me up scottie
Apr 2017
#65
Of course I knew it was owned by Unilever. That's why I commented on the blatant
DanTex
Apr 2017
#66
Except - again - NO ONE is defending Unilever. We're discussing Ben and Jerry's.
beam me up scottie
Apr 2017
#67
LOL Unilever is an exceptionally responsible corporation, its hilarious to watch people acting like
bettyellen
Apr 2017
#69
Again - no one actually said that, right? What's with all these straw men?
beam me up scottie
Apr 2017
#71
No, actually it isn't. One is a small progressive company in Vermont, the other isn't.
beam me up scottie
Apr 2017
#72
You don't actually expect anyone to believe it's that simple, do you?
beam me up scottie
Apr 2017
#75
Actually Unilever disagrees with you. Do they understand corporate ownership?
beam me up scottie
Apr 2017
#79
You still don't understand the difference between a subsidiary and its parent company?
beam me up scottie
Apr 2017
#85
You mean like how they don't know the difference between a subsidiary and its parent company?
beam me up scottie
Apr 2017
#90
I do what what now? Can you provide an example of where I said that?
beam me up scottie
Apr 2017
#97
And I suspect that the bright folks in the Unilever boardroom understand
Warren DeMontague
Apr 2017
#150
LOL! Thanks, I work with animals, you need to have a lot of patience.
beam me up scottie
Apr 2017
#86
Wow. I did a search for that statement and the first link is to Breitbart.
beam me up scottie
Apr 2017
#116
So, scottie, you're claiming that Ben and Jerry did NOT sell out to Unilever?
George II
Apr 2017
#121
No I'm laughing at the characterization of Ben and Jerry as "corporatists" who sold out.
beam me up scottie
Apr 2017
#123
You're actually claiming that anyone who owns a corporation and sells it is a corporatist?
beam me up scottie
Apr 2017
#148
Oh, but in this thread we are assured that giant multinational corporations like Unilever can be
betsuni
Apr 2017
#118
Really? Can you link to those posts? I just reread this thread and I don't see them.
beam me up scottie
Apr 2017
#120
Nope. Just searched again. Can you point it out? Should be easy enough to do.
beam me up scottie
Apr 2017
#128
By the way, it's very nice that you display a version of the Japanese corporation Sanrio's
betsuni
Apr 2017
#165
Spring is the time to turn over a new leaf. It wasn't very nice to accuse me of pulling
betsuni
Apr 2017
#160