On the other hand in order to undertake this strategy they had to go against their principles, due to their high commitment to the society and their employees. The high potentials of such a great company are outstanding. Selling to Unilever meant going from an utopia of ideal company to an extremely ethical company. In other words they went from outstanding good to extremely good. Unilever did change many things, however it was able to keep the best side of the company with its benefits to the society. It would still be great if every existing company would be able to do business the way Unilever does with Ben and Jerry’s. The takeover meant an ulterior expansion of the company, therefore an ulterior expansion of benefits to more communities surrounding the plant facilities around the world. This means that the takeover was not that bad in the end. If Ben and Jerry wasn’t able to do it, it is important that Unilever was capable to keep the company and its benefits …show more content…
Ben and Jerry’s. 10/19/2010. http://www.benjerry.com/activism/mission- statement/”.
“Ben and Jerry’s Hisotry. Ben and Jerry’s. 10/19/2010. http://www.benjerry.com/company/history/”.
Business for Social Responsibility. How we work. 19 Oct 2010. http://www.bsr.org/about/how-we-work.cfm.
Carroll Archie B. Business and Social: Ethics and Stakeholder Management, 4th ed., Cincinnati: South-Western, 1999, pp. 33-36.
Martin, Roger. "The Age of Customer Capitalism." The Big Idea. Harvard Business Review, Feb 2010. Web. 19 Oct 2010.
Meadow, Donella. "The Global Citizen." Globalization of Ben and Jerry's. 13 April 2000: 1. Web. 19 Oct 2010. http://www.pcdf.org/meadows/ben_and_jerry.html
Pool, Hannah. "Question time with Hannah Pool ." Jerry Greenfield, co-founder of Ben & Jerry's, on starting out 30 years ago, selling out to Unilever - and his favourite flavour (2008): 1. Web. 19 Oct 2010.