Ben & Jerry’s said its parent, Unilever (ULVR.L), decided to oust the ice cream maker’s chief executive, Dave Stever, escalating a battle over the subsidiary’s independence on social policy issues.
In a Tuesday night filing in Manhattan federal court, Ben & Jerry’s said Unilever advised on March 3 it was removing Stever without consulting directors because of his commitment to the ice cream maker’s social mission and brand integrity, not because of concerns about his job performance.
It said Unilever chastised Stever in a January performance review for “repeatedly acquiescing” to Ben & Jerry’s promotion of social goals, and has repeatedly warned personnel not to defy its efforts to “silence the social mission.”
Ben & Jerry’s also said Unilever’s attacks on its social mission have reached “new levels of oppressiveness.”
Thinking it would go any other way is extreme naïveté. They’re not. They might have ‘wanted’ to have their ice cream and eat it too, but they wanted the money more. 🤷♂️
I don’t remember which company it is, but a CEO with socially progressive views was appointed by shareholders. He believes that you can be ethical and still run a multibillion company. After a year, he was replaced. It wasn’t explicitly mentioned but we know why he was replaced.
Unless you own the company yourself, I think you could be ethical. But more cut throat rivals would undermine you, leaving you with no choice but to either let your company be bought because you simply cannot compete, or you could keep up with the Joneses and follow along with cut throat tactics to remain competitive.
The third option though is if you are comfortable enough with what you are earning that you don’t feel the need to compete and expand. This is what many family-owned Japanese businesses do. Those businesses have been passed down from generation to generation stretching back hundreds of years. A lot of said businesses explain they do not want to expand because it is risky and are happy enough with their enterprise.