supporters of the State of Israel, which was one of the company’s first international markets. “But it’s possible to support Israel and oppose some of its policies, just as we’ve opposed policies of the U.S. government,” they wrote. They described the move as “brave”, saying it’s one of the most important decisions the company has made in its 43-year history. “Even though it undoubtedly knew that the response would be swift and powerful, Ben & Jerry’s took the step to align its business and operations with its progressive values.” They said the decision is “not a contradiction”, “[not] anti-Semitic” and “not a boycott of Israel”, but rather an act that can “[advance] the concepts of justice and human rights, core tenets of Judaism”. Dr Abas Mirzaei, senior lecturer in marketing at Macquarie Business School, believes it was wise for the founders to address the criticism head on. “That’s something that we don’t often see, as brands treat this type of activism as a ‘set and forget’ strategy,” he told Inside Retail.  When brands fail to address concerns, this can often be met with anger and frustration, he explained.  “If not addressed, the unhappy ‘brand public’ will take their fight to another level, getting more proactive, actively advocating for brand boycott.”  Unilever rejects boycott movement When Ben & Jerry’s was acquired by Unilever in 2000, the founders signed a unique governance structure to allow the company to maintain its independence, with its own board of directors responsible for protecting Ben & Jerry’s brand integrity and social mission. But nevertheless, the companies remain tied and the consumer goods giant has been forced to step in to address some of the recent criticism. Last week, Unilever came out to reject anti-Semitism and the Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) Movement after several American Jewish groups raised concerns. “Unilever rejects completely and repudiates unequivocally any forms of discrimination or intolerance. Anti-Semitism has no place in any society,” CEO Alan Jope wrote in a letter to several Jewish organisations.  “We have never expressed any support for the BDS movement and have no intention of changing that position,” he said. Mirzaei says the challenge for Unilever, as the parent brand, is the “spillover effect” of frustration to other brands owned by the company. He points to Gillette’s 2019 “The best men can be” campaign, an attempt to promote positive masculinity which split opinions online, as an example.  “Many of those unhappy customers kept referring to P&G as the corporate brand behind Gillette, and thus kept posting the list of all brands owned by P&G. What was the call to action? Let’s not only boycott Gillette, but also all brands in the P&G family,” he said. “Therefore, it can be extremely risky for Unilever if the negative feelings, emotions, and potential purchase behaviours are passed from Ben & Jerry’s to other brands.” He believes such moves need to be aligned with the corporate brand’s higher values and mission, particularly with such politically charged issues like this. The common good Cohen and Greenfield finished their essay by pointing to the power that businesses hold in society and their ability to make change.  “We believe that companies have a responsibility to use their power and influence to advance the wider common good … As you give, you receive,” they wrote. “To us, that’s what this decision represents, and that is why we are proud that 43 years after starting an ice cream shop in a dilapidated gas station in Burlington, Vt., our names are still on the package.”