Last week Ben & Jerry’s sought to sue owner Unilever over claims it was silenced from speaking out about Palestinian refugees amid the Israel-Gaza conflict.

Filed in New York, the lawsuit claimed that Unilever attempted to block the ice cream brand from making public statements over Gaza, infringing on the terms of a settlement made between the pair in 2022 where Unilever agreed to “Ben & Jerry’s social mission”.

This is not the first time Ben & Jerry’s has clashed with its parent company over its stance on social, climate and human rights issues.

The brand is particularly outspoken on such issues. But should it be? Or is it overstepping its role by dabbling in social and political matters?

We caught up with former Unilever vice president of global marketing Ian Maskell and Iris strategy director Samaneh Zamani, to ask: should brands take a political stance?

Founder and former Unilever vice president of global marketing Ian Maskell

“Taking a political stance can help brands build deeper connections with their target consumers – especially millennials and Gen Z – who are more likely to support brands that represent their values and beliefs.

Standing up for social or political issues can foster loyalty and trust among this customer base.

An outspoken approach helps differentiate a brand – creating a distinct and unique identity. Ben & Jerry’s has long been known for its commitment to social justice, which has become central to its brand identity.

Brands have the power to make a positive impact on society. By taking a stand on important issues, they can drive social change and contribute to the greater good.

This can enhance the brand’s reputation and demonstrate how it is living its values.

Employees are more likely to feel proud and motivated to work for a company that aligns with their values.

Taking a political stance can boost employee morale, engagement, and retention as they feel they are part of a company that makes a difference.

But there are risks. Taking a political stance is, by definition, polarising. Brands can alienate consumers with opposing views. Leading to boycotts, negative publicity and a potential loss of revenue.

If the stance is perceived as a marketing ploy rather than a genuine commitment, it can backfire. Consumers quickly spot inauthenticity, which can damage the brand’s credibility and trust.

Engaging in political issues can expose brands to legal and financial risks. The lawsuit between Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever highlights how internal conflicts over a political stance can lead to costly legal battles and strained relationships.

Taking a political stance can lead to operational disruptions. A brand may face challenges if suppliers or retail partners disagree with its stance.

Brands taking a political stance is a complex and multifaceted decision; such a move can build loyalty, differentiate the brand and drive positive social impact. There are, however, risks – like alienating customers, perceived inauthenticity, legal challenges and operational disruptions.

Brands taking a political stance must be certain it aligns with their core values and mission. Authenticity and consistency are key.

Ben & Jerry’s has a long history of taking a stance on certain issues – like ethical sourcing and supporting migrants.

As a brand with Jewish founders, it is credible for Ben & Jerry’s to have an opinion on the war in Gaza. Given the brands long term commitment to social activism and a business ethos rooted in principles of justice and equity – Ben & Jerry consumers would expect them to take a position on Gaza and are likely to support them.

Ben & Jerry’s taking a stance on Gaza is ‘on brand’ and will build loyalty amongst its loyal consumer base.

Unilever will face criticism for one of its brands supporting a position that many people – including investors. Ben & Jerry’s are making it clear they have their own agenda and it is becoming stronger as a result!

I have always believed in the importance of having an empathetic approach to marketing for brands.

Ultimately, whether a brand adopts a political stance or not comes down to two factors: the intrinsic values, beliefs, and reasons for existing as a brand, and an extrinsic understanding of the communities it exists to serve.

It’s a hard line to tread, especially with the Pepsi x Kendall Jenner “white saviour” fear in the back of most marketer’s minds.

However, that’s where empathy and understanding must come into play.

Take Nike’s ‘Dream Crazy” campaign with Colin Kaepernick as an example.

Nike exists to serve athletes of all backgrounds and races and has a big presence in communities which were being directly affected by the Black Lives Matter movement.

For the brand to remain silent on such a major topic, would make its relationship with these groups feel opportunistic, and performative. It could have jumped on the trend, like many others, and kept its statement to just posting a black square.

However, its approach was one of leadership, and empathy: our tribe is experiencing injustice, and we will use our influence to champion their cause.

The challenge lies in striking a balance between feeling a sense of responsibility as an influential part of culture, which brands can be, and the reality of what your brand is on the most basic level.

Can ice cream resolve the conflict in Gaza? Of course not. Can a major organisation which has a presence, and financial stake in the affected territories use that position to champion against social injustice? Absolutely.

My biggest piece of advice for any brand navigating this challenge is to think about the type of relationship it wants with its consumers. If it’s going to be a one-way conversation, where the goal is simply to sell your products and their benefits – which every brand is well within its right to do – then perhaps stay out of the political discourse.

However, if you are a brand that actively wants to engage in culture, and the communities that enrich those spaces, then you also need to be an active participant.

You cannot just show up, splash your logo around, and back away when things get uncomfortable.

Engage, be interested, be an ally, and use your influence to stand up for your audience when they need you most.

Every business decision a brand makes, particularly when it comes to the audiences and communities it decides to serve, must come with the understanding that it’s a relationship for the good times, and the bad.

You can’t expect consumers to choose you if you’re not willing to choose them when times get tough.