Ben Cohen Blasts Magnum Despite Cashing Out Long Ago, Acting Like a Sold‑Out Activist Desperate for Relevance

Ben Cohen has spent years trying to position himself as the moral compass of Ben & Jerry’s — despite the fact that he already took his payday, walked away, and handed the company over to corporate ownership long ago. Now, at 75, he’s back in the spotlight, loudly accusing the current owner, Magnum Ice Cream Co., of destroying the “soul” of a brand he himself sold off a quarter‑century earlier.

Cohen’s latest crusade, a public campaign called “Free Ben & Jerry’s,” demands that Magnum sell the company to investors who supposedly share his values. More than 200,000 people have signed his petition, though critics note that Cohen is essentially protesting the consequences of a deal he personally approved — one that made him rich and left the brand in the hands of the very corporate machinery he now rails against.

“We’re trying to keep Ben & Jerry’s soul alive,” Cohen insists, accusing Magnum of caring only about profit. But the irony is hard to miss: Cohen made his fortune by selling the company to Unilever in 2000, trusting a multinational conglomerate to protect the brand’s social mission. Now he’s shocked — shocked! — that corporate owners behave like corporate owners.

Cohen’s activism has always been theatrical, and age hasn’t mellowed him. He’s still staging stunts, getting arrested, and inserting himself into political debates most companies avoid. But critics say he’s become more of a professional protester than a businessman, a man who cashed out decades ago and now wants to rewrite history to cast himself as the lone defender of a mission he willingly handed over.

Ben & Jerry’s was built on quirky flavors and feel‑good messaging, and Cohen and Jerry Greenfield did create a foundation that donated millions to social causes. But when they sold the company, they also surrendered control — something Cohen now seems unwilling to acknowledge. His current outrage centers on Magnum’s decision to cut funding to the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation and impose governance changes Cohen calls “asset stripping.” Magnum says the board members simply refused to sign a standard code of conduct.

Meanwhile, Ben & Jerry’s remains Magnum’s strongest performer, posting the fastest growth among its brands. Investors are pushing for clarity, but Cohen is pushing for drama. At Magnum’s annual meeting, he orchestrated a protest featuring someone in a giant ice‑cream‑cone costume calling for a boycott — a spectacle that left many inside the company wondering whether Cohen is fighting for principle or just fighting for attention.

Magnum’s spokesperson summed up the confusion: “Ben loves to fight for a cause, but in this case, the question becomes: What, exactly?”

Cohen insists he’s battling a “failure of corporate nerve,” accusing companies of retreating from social commitments. But critics argue he’s simply trying to reclaim relevance, lecturing a company he no longer owns about how it should run a business he willingly sold.

Whether Ben & Jerry’s remains a mission‑driven brand may come down to a court ruling. Cohen, for his part, seems determined to keep fighting — even if the fight is against the consequences of his own decisions.

About Post Author

MichCon

See author's posts