File Name: ben and jerrys application .zip
The company was founded in in Burlington, Vermont. There are three factories in the United States.
- Ben and Jerry’s Job Application Online
- Ben & Jerry's and Unilever: The Bohemian and the Behemoth
- The Truth About Ben and Jerry’s
The company, founded in , becomes a social enterprise icon. It is fair to its employees, easy on the environment , and kind to its cows. Peace, love, and ice cream! In Act Two, set in , the mood sours. Neither Ben Cohen nor Jerry Greenfield wanted to sell the company, but because it was public they had no choice. If the corporate form is bad for social enterprise, social entrepreneurs should use more suitable alternatives.
This article challenges the canonical account of that sale. It exposes the underlying assumptions about corporate law as erroneous: Corporate law does not require publicly traded corporations to maximize shareholder wealth.
When Cohen and Greenfield first started out, they were simply trying to earn a living. It was only when the business began to take off that they began the transition toward a progressive enterprise. And how much profit is left over at the end of each month? They relied heavily on local suppliers of milk to make their products. They hired a local artist to design their cartons and graphics. Although Unilever spoke about nurturing the social mission, many observers were skeptical.
The new board included Cohen and Greenfield, and its members, not Unilever, would appoint their successors. Unilever also promised to continue contributing pretax profits to charity, maintain corporate presence in Vermont for at least five years, and refrain from material layoffs for at least two years.
This perception reflects the erroneous view that corporate directors must always act to maximize shareholder value. The best and arguably only support for this view is from Dodge v. Ford , a decision from the Michigan Supreme Court.
Dodge v. Ford is an anomaly, as other courts have not followed its view of shareholder primacy. Most state legislatures have resisted the tenets of Dodge v. Ford by enacting statutes that expressly authorize corporate directors to look beyond shareholder wealth maximization. In practice, courts are deferential to board decision making.
Under a doctrine called the business judgment rule, unless the directors have a conflict of interest, nearly all board business decisions are beyond judicial review. If there is a potential benefit to shareholders, the courts will not interfere. Its founders, lawyers, and lobbyists had taken many steps to prevent a hostile takeover. To cancel a poison pill, an acquirer must either find a friendly board or get one elected.
The company had two classes of common stock, one with 10 votes per share and the other with one vote, and between them they held three-quarters of the super-voting stock. The New York Times Co. Faced with an entrenched unfriendly board, a would-be acquirer might have gone to court claiming that corporate law required the board to redeem a poison pill. This was unlikely for two reasons. First, although Vermont courts have not been presented with this situation, most state courts that have considered it have rejected any such obligation.
Second, even if the obligation might theoretically exist, this situation was unlikely to trigger it. Suppose, however, that a Vermont court had required the board to act to redeem its poison pill or enter into a merger agreement.
It does not mean the offer will succeed. If a majority of shareholders do not agree to tender their shares for sale, the attempted takeover fails. If they did not tender, they retained their stock and their control of the company. The foundation itself could not be taken over because its board members selected their own successors.
There is one complication in the analysis above. The board would, after all, owe fiduciary duties to the holders of super-voting stock, and a duty of good faith and fair dealing to holders of the preferred stock. Corporate law permitted super-voting stock and the granting of a veto to a charitable foundation. Moreover, corporate law allows directors to reject an offer, at least where the directors have not irrevocably committed themselves to a sale.
Some cynically claim that the founders were ready to cash out. People close to the decision say they were motivated by fear of litigation, followed by a judgment that they would have to satisfy personally. Financial success is also essential to staying is control. Most important, the chief safeguard for maintaining the social mission is the people in control. A hybrid legal form is neither necessary nor sufficient to maintain a social enterprise Although the publicly traded corporate form can be challenging, many businesses employing it have pursued social missions with vigor and endurance.
These firms use several strategies, legal and nonlegal, to ward off hostile takeovers. Foundations and super-voting stock are not uncommon.
Rather, it was the declining health of the business itself. Successful and promising companies are better positioned to take on new investors while retaining controlling positions for the founders. Interestingly, both companies also asserted that providing services, rather than making a profit, was their top priority. Although it is true that even successful companies are bought, it is also true that shareholders tend to back successful management.
Put differently, takeovers often result from poor stock performance, which usually results from weak financial performance. Investment bankers commonly observe that the best defense is a high stock price. Anti-takeover protections are only as effective as the people positioned to use them. Regardless of the for-profit organizational form in which a business is housed, people who exercise control over the company will usually be able to thwart its social mission.
So long as the organizational structure is adequate, it will be the decision makers who make the difference. Cohen and Greenfield attempted to achieve this by negotiating the creation of an independent and robust board for the post-acquisition subsidiary.
When critics claim corporations are inherently pathological, they mean that they encourage antisocial decision making by their employees. Yet the causation is uncertain: Does a virtuous form make directors more virtuous, or do the virtuous seek out businesses so formed? Hence the irony. Of course, even if new forms for social enterprises are not legally necessary, some structural innovations might prove useful nonetheless.
To date, a significant amount of resources has been devoted to developing social enterprise forms and lobbying states to enact them. As an exercise in political entrepreneurship, this strategy has produced results: Eight states have L3Cs, seven states have benefit corporations, and one has a flexible purpose corporation. It is an open question, however, whether this approach fosters more social innovation than would otherwise occur, or promotes it more effectively. When a form has been enacted in one state, it is available to residents of every state.
What then is the point of pressing more states to enact the L3C , which is primarily intended to attract capital from relatively sophisticated investors—namely, grantmaking foundations?
Photo by Holly Lindem. X SSIR. I Agree.
Ben and Jerry’s Job Application Online
The first two weeks Nova ran commercials pushing the Free Cone Day campaign and encouraging listeners to phone Fitzy and Wippa to submit ice cream flavour ideas ahead of the Free Cone Day Scoop-Off between the two boys. The last three weeks, Nova ran commercials soliciting entries for listeners to submit people of their choice who deserved to be awarded for their kindness. Listeners were invited onto the Nova website to complete the entry form with their idea for an ice-cream flavour and names for the boys to choose for their Free Cone Day Scoop-Off. From a total of 24 live reads across the campaign period, a total of 1, unique users visited the Nova website to register their ice cream name ideas. Facebook Twitter Instagram.
Ben & Jerry's and Unilever: The Bohemian and the Behemoth
Case Studies. The company produces a wide variety of super-premium ice cream and ice cream novelties, using high-quality ingredients including milk and cream from family farmers who do not treat their cows with the synthetic hormone rBGH, eggs from hens on Certified Humane cage-free farms, and brownies from Greyston Bakery, a social enterprise in Yonkers, New York. Founded in by Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, the company now has just over employees and nearly Scoop Shops worldwide, with manufacturing operations at facilities in Waterbury, VT, and St. The result is the perfect pint for our customers.
February 21, Location: Pacific Fair Posted on: 05 September
The Truth About Ben and Jerry’s
It was founded in in Burlington, Vermont , and sold in to British-Dutch conglomerate Unilever. Today it operates globally as a fully owned subsidiary of Unilever. Its present-day headquarters is in South Burlington, Vermont , with its main factory in Waterbury, Vermont.
The company, founded in , becomes a social enterprise icon. It is fair to its employees, easy on the environment , and kind to its cows. Peace, love, and ice cream!