Monday , February 17 2025

Ben & Jerry’s demonstrates how not to do business

For an archetypal example of how not to do business against today’s backdrop of tough economic conditions, inflation, a cost of living crisis, and polarised political discourse, look no further than Ben & Jerry’s. They appeared to have everything planned out for them on paper. Their high-priced ice cream items were available on the shelves of a number of supermarkets. Unilever, a multinational corporation that specialises in food and cosmetics, owned the company. On the other hand, the management of the company made a series of mistakes that were so perplexing that they caused the company’s brand to plummet, and eventually, Unilever decided to do rid with it. The problem that has so frequently backfired on corporate decision-makers in recent years was the attempt to utilise their profit-making brand to make a political statement that is unpopular. This was the foundation of the issue.

In order to attract unfavourable attention for their contentious political ideas and activity, Ben & Jerry’s developed an addiction to doing so. It established a method of operation that consisted of locating a sensitive subject and then making offensive statements about it, causing as many people as possible to become upset in the process. Ben & Jerry’s accomplished something that was distinct from what other companies do, which is to truly voice their opinions on certain problems and to position themselves in a way that aligns them with particular causes. It was unapologetically contrary to the trend, and it appeared to thrive on the fact that people disapproved of what it stated.

For instance, the corporation picked the fourth of July, which is the day that the United States celebrates its independence, to make the statement that the United States “was founded on stolen Indigenous land.” This statement caused a great deal of distress among the American people and, in all likelihood, did not contribute significantly to the advancement of any particular cause. Furthermore, Ben & Jerry’s has established a reputation for itself in relation to a variety of other contentious issues, such as immigration. When the history of its leadership is disclosed, its positions make a great deal more sense than they ever did before. Anuradha Mittal, who is also a political campaigner in her own right, is likely the person responsible for many of these calls in her capacity as the boss of Ben & Jerry’s.

One of the most influential political pressure groups in the world is called the Oakland Institute, and Mittal is the driving force behind it. When she was leading the Oakland Institute, she was able to campaign to her heart’s content; but, when Ben & Jerry’s did the same thing, it led many people to feel that the ice cream corporation was more concerned with politics than it was with making a profit. This was especially true throughout the time that the corporation permitted its political campaigns to interfere with its primary business, which consisted of the production and sale of ice cream. This is precisely what transpired when it interjected itself into the environmental argument around palm oil.

As a reason for their decision to stop using palm oil, Ben & Jerry’s, along with other companies, mentioned the issue of deforestation. The production of it, they claimed, was responsible for the destruction of forest land. On the other hand, it appears that they failed to recognise that the production of palm oil requires a significantly smaller amount of land than the production of other oils, sometimes even 10 times less. As a result, switching away from palm oil results in an increase in deforestation, rather than a decrease, because it requires clearing more land to produce the same quantity of oil. Additionally, the rates of deforestation are rapidly decreasing as a result of advancements in sustainability. Primary forest loss in Malaysia, a leading producer of palm oil, has decreased by 70 percent since 2014, according to data provided by Global Forest Watch. Today, more than ninety percent of the palm oil that is imported into Europe is certified as being environmentally friendly.

Ben & Jerry’s was so preoccupied with politics that it failed to make the connection between the boycott of palm oil and the damage it caused. The allure of being able to brand itself an environmentally responsible company by demonising palm oil was so alluring that the corporation forgot to think about the longer-term impacts that decision would have on the environment, never alone how it would affect their profit margins and financial sheet. This is a lesson that other businesses can easily learn.

About Daily Globe

Check Also

The Best of Both Worlds? How Higher Interest Rates and A Growing Economy Benefits the Consumer

Already this month, the Bank of England has made headlines twice. First, the Bank chose …