Amidst the ongoing conflict in Gaza, a legal dispute has emerged as Ben & Jerry’s takes legal action against its parent company, Unilever, alleging it was silenced from voicing concerns about Palestinian refugees. This lawsuit, filed in New York, centers on claims that Unilever blocked the ice cream brand from making public statements, allegedly breaching a 2022 agreement which acknowledged Ben & Jerry’s commitment to social issues.
Ben & Jerry’s is renowned for its outspoken nature on social, climate, and human rights issues. However, the question arises of whether brands should involve themselves in political discourse. Former Unilever vice president Ian Maskell and Iris strategy director Samaneh Zamani provide insights into this matter, highlighting both potential benefits and risks.
Maskell argues that taking a political stance can forge deeper connections with consumers, especially millennials and Gen Z, who prefer brands that reflect their values. This can foster loyalty and differentiate a brand within the market. Ben & Jerry’s identity has long been tied to social justice, enhancing its reputation and aligning with its employees’ values, thereby boosting morale and engagement.
However, this approach also entails significant risks. Maskell notes that polarising views can alienate consumers, potentially leading to boycotts and damage to revenue. If perceived as insincere, such stances can undermine a brand’s credibility. Moreover, legal and financial challenges may arise, as evidenced by the current lawsuit. Political engagement can also disrupt operations if partners disagree with the stance taken.
For a brand like Ben & Jerry’s, with a history of supporting ethical causes and a strong commitment to social activism, taking a stance on Gaza aligns with its values. Maskell asserts that this consistency is crucial, ensuring that actions match stated values to maintain consumer trust.
Conversely, Zamani stresses the importance of understanding the communities brands aim to serve. Brands should consider whether they wish to engage actively in societal matters or focus solely on their product offerings. Referencing Nike’s approach during the Black Lives Matter movement, the strategy director emphasises empathy and leadership in supporting affected communities despite potential backlash.
Zamani advises that brands must evaluate their long-term relationships with consumers. If the engagement extends beyond transactions to meaningful interactions, brands need to be consistent allies to their audience. This requires a commitment to stand by their consumers, even when it involves navigating controversial issues.
The decision for brands to adopt a political stance is complex and requires careful consideration of their core values, consumer expectations, and the broader social impact. While engaging in political issues can enhance loyalty and drive social change, it also presents potential risks that must be weighed. Authenticity and consistency remain key in maintaining trust and credibility in such endeavours.
