For decades, Ben & Jerry’s built its public identity around speaking openly about social and political issues. But what happens when a company known for speaking out begins struggling over whether it is still allowed to speak at all?
This bachelor’s thesis examines how Ben & Jerry’s communicated and negotiated its activist brand identity between 2021 and 2025 amid the conflict surrounding Israel-Palestine and growing tensions with its corporate owner, Unilever. The conflict intensified in 2021 when Ben & Jerry’s announced that it would stop selling its products in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, arguing that doing so was inconsistent with its values. The decision triggered a public dispute with its corporate owner, Unilever, over the brand’s political independence and right to take such positions. While existing research on brand activism often focuses on how consumers respond to corporate activism, this thesis looks at what happens within the organization itself: How can an activist brand maintain a coherent identity when speaking out becomes politically and corporately complicated?
The thesis approaches brand activism through the lens of Karl Weick’s concept of organizational sensemaking, which understands communication as an ongoing process through which organizations construct meaning, legitimacy and identity under conditions of uncertainty. To examine this process, the analysis draws on qualitative content analysis of official company statements, Social and Environmental Assessment Reports (SEAR), Instagram posts, audience comment sections and the public resignation letter of co-founder Jerry Greenfield.
The findings show that activism did not disappear from Ben & Jerry’s communication after the 2021 controversy, but increasingly shifted toward less geopolitically sensitive issues. At the same time, silence itself became meaningful. Audience reactions repeatedly interpreted avoided topics, communication gaps and changes in tone as signs of corporate pressure and loss of independence. The thesis therefore argues that activist brands do not simply communicate political values, but continuously negotiate identity and authenticity in environments where meaning itself becomes unstable and contested.
The Ben & Jerry’s case ultimately shows how fragile the balance between activism, corporate ownership and public legitimacy can become once a brand’s voice is no longer fully its own.