Ben & Jerry's hit the headlines last month when Jerry Greenfield resigned 50 years after founding the global business with Ben Cohen, saying he could no longer "in good conscience" continue working for a company that its parent company Unilever had "silenced".
He claimed Unilever was too afraid of "upsetting the those in power" if the brand continued to use its might to campaign for peace in Gaza.
This came after the company controversially stopped selling its products in disputed Israeli settlements.
Back in the day, Ben and Jerry transformed the ice-cream business from a tiny local enterprise into a worldwide icon of social activism.
The firm distinguished itself not just by its inventive ice-cream flavours (and tiny chocolate fish), but by its relentless commitment to social justice.
Colliding with corporate governance
Over the decades, the brand has championed issues like environmental sustainability, racial equity, LGBTQ+ rights and economic fairness.
But since Unilever acquired Ben & Jerry's in 2000, this activist spirit has increasingly collided with the imperatives of global corporate governance.
Decisions such as ceasing operations in disputed territories and restrictions on political commentary have fuelled the growing tension between Ben & Jerry's independent, value-driven approach and Unilever's profit-focused directives.
The conflict raises an issue that today's brands face in an increasingly polarised world: how do you balance ethical commitments with commercial pressures?