Ben & Jerry’s co-founder Ben Cohen has called on retailers to boycott Magnum products as he intensifies pressure on the ice cream giant to sell the brand to investors who would protect its social mission.

Speaking to Retail Gazette, Cohen said retailers and suppliers should “either stop buying Magnum products or at least raise your voice” over what he described as the company’s failure to uphold contractual commitments to Ben & Jerry’s.

Cohen said Magnum should consider selling Ben & Jerry’s because of the tension between the ice cream brand’s social mission and the wider company’s approach to managing its portfolio.

“They own over 100 brands. They know how to manage all of them except one,” he said. “All of their other brands have no social mission. They have no heart. They have no soul, and you know that’s fine. They know how to manage those brands.”

Cohen argued that Magnum could use proceeds from a sale to invest in other brands that do not have the same governance requirements as Ben & Jerry’s. “There’s not this existential conflict,” he said. “Either Ben and Jerry’s gets sold or Ben and Jerry’s as we know it dies.”

The comments come as the dispute between Ben & Jerry’s and its parent company continues to widen, with the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation yesterday (15 July) announcing it will suspend operations at the end of the year unless a legal challenge against Magnum succeeds.

Cohen also revealed that the discovery phase of the legal case is expected to conclude by September, meaning, while he was unable to provide a timeline for when a final ruling could be expected, an outcome for the case could extend until next year.

The campaign, which has already prompted consumer calls to boycott Magnum-owned brands including Wall’s and Cornetto, is now seeking to increase pressure on retailers as well as consumers.

Cohen argued that public pressure could still force Magnum to reconsider its refusal to sell Ben & Jerry’s.

“Magnum is concerned about its brand image,” he said. “Magnum wants to sell as much ice cream as it can.”

He added that many Ben & Jerry’s customers were unaware of what he claimed was an attempt to dismantle the brand’s social mission, and said informing consumers would encourage them to put pressure on the wider business by avoiding other Magnum-owned brands.

Cohen also claimed that investors willing to preserve Ben & Jerry’s social purpose had already approached Magnum about a potential acquisition.

“We’ve established a group of socially aligned investors who are ready and willing to buy Ben & Jerry’s, but Magnum refuses to engage with them,” he said, adding that the company had simply responded that Ben & Jerry’s “is not for sale”.

However, Cohen suggested that even a favourable court ruling would not resolve the underlying conflict.

The best outcome of the legal proceedings is that Magnum gets forced to follow a legally binding contract,” he said. “But if you need a court to rule that your partner needs to be nice to you, things are not really going to work out.”

A spokesperson from the Magnum Ice Cream Company said: “We are deeply disappointed to read the press release from the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation Trustees regarding the Foundation – an organisation which has to date received $60m from Unilever / TMICC – that mischaracterises events past and present.

“The decision to suspend operations is entirely down to the Trustees and their decision to ignore the findings of an independent audit and failure to put in place basic good governance; much to our dismay.

“TMICC remains firmly committed to funding a grant-giving foundation and to supporting the Ben & Jerry’s team and its three-part mission – making great ice cream and campaigning on the causes the brand cares about.”

Click here to sign up to Retail Gazette‘s free daily email newsletter