Ben & Jerry’s has initiated legal action against its parent company, Unilever, regarding alleged restrictions on its ability to comment about Palestinian refugees amid the ongoing Israel-Gaza conflict. This lawsuit highlights a critical debate: should brands engage in political discourse? In 2022, a settlement between Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever recognised the brand’s commitment to social issues, yet tensions have re-emerged as the ice cream company accuses Unilever of breaching this agreement.
Former Unilever executive Ian Maskell emphasises that adopting a political stance can strengthen ties with younger consumers who value brands reflecting their beliefs. Brands like Ben & Jerry’s, known for its social justice advocacy, may enhance their identity and loyalty through such actions. However, Maskell warns of the inherent risks, such as alienating consumers with differing views, potentially inviting boycotts and negative press, or being perceived as insincere if motivations are questionable.
Maskell further highlights that legal and financial risks are considerable, as demonstrated by the ongoing legal dispute. The internal conflict regarding Ben & Jerry’s stance could lead to strained relationships and operational disruptions, especially if partners disagree with the stance taken.
The commitment to a political stance must align with a brand’s core values to maintain authenticity. Ben & Jerry’s long-standing dedication to social justice, ethical sourcing, and support for migrants fosters consumer expectation for the brand to express views on issues like the Gaza conflict. The brand’s history and its roots in social activism underscore its connection to such causes.
Samaneh Zamani, a strategy director, points out the necessity of empathy in marketing, asserting that brands must consider both internal values and external community needs before engaging politically. Using the example of Nike’s involvement in the Black Lives Matter movement, she illustrates how silence on significant issues can be perceived as opportunistic, contrasting with authentic engagement that promotes leadership and empathy.
Brands must gauge the kind of relationship they wish to foster with their customers. If a company aims to actively engage with its cultural environment and communities, it must be prepared to embrace the challenges and responsibilities that come with taking a political stand.
The discussion on whether brands should voice political stands remains intricate, reflecting both potential benefits and substantial risks. Ben & Jerry’s case serves as a testament to a brand’s challenge in balancing its social mission with corporate partnerships. As businesses navigate this complex landscape, authenticity and adherence to core values seem pivotal in determining consumer support and loyalty.
