Unilever Political Audit

1. Executive Intelligence Summary

1.1 Audit Context and Mandate

This comprehensive Political Risk Audit evaluates the governance structures, operational footprint, and ideological alignments of Unilever PLC (“the Entity”) to assess its degree of complicity in supporting the State of Israel, the occupation of Palestinian territories, and associated systems of surveillance or militarization. This report responds to a specific mandate to document material and ideological support, analyzing Core Intelligence Requirements (CIRs) related to Governance Ideology, Lobbying & Trade, Comparative Crisis Response (the “Safe Harbor” test), and Internal Policy enforcement.

The audit synthesizes forensic analysis of board affiliations, financial filings, litigation records, and corporate communications from the period 2020–2026. It operates under the premise that corporate “neutrality” in the face of asymmetric conflict and international law violations requires rigorous scrutiny to determine if it functions as a mechanism for maintaining the status quo. The findings presented herein are structured to populate a proprietary ranking scale ranging from ‘None’ to ‘Upper-Extreme’ political complicity.

1.2 Strategic Assessment of Findings

The audit concludes that Unilever PLC exhibits indicators consistent with a High to Upper-Extreme classification on the political complicity scale. This assessment is driven not merely by passive commercial presence, but by active governance interventions that prioritize alignment with Israeli state interests and pro-Israel advocacy groups over international human rights commitments and the Entity’s own subsidiary governance protocols.

Key Intelligence Indicators:

• Governance Capture: The appointment of Nelson Peltz, Chairman of the Simon Wiesenthal Center (a prominent Zionist advocacy organization), to the Unilever Board in 2022 marks a critical inflection point. His tenure correlates directly with the aggressive dismantling of the Ben & Jerry’s independent board’s pro-Palestinian initiatives and the forced sale of the Israel franchise to bypass human rights boycotts.¹
• Asymmetric Crisis Response: The Entity fails the “Safe Harbor” test. While it engaged in immediate, costly, and morally explicit divestment and condemnation regarding the Russia-Ukraine war, it has deployed legal and operational mechanisms to maintain its presence in Israel during the Gaza conflict. This includes silencing calls for a ceasefire and blocking humanitarian support for Palestinian refugees.⁴
• Lobbying Infrastructure: Unilever maintains a documented financial and reputational investment in the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) and the British-Israel Chamber of Commerce (B-ICC). By funding political delegations and sponsoring trade events, the Entity actively cultivates the political ecosystem that insulates Israel from diplomatic accountability.⁷
• Operational Integration: Beyond consumer goods, Unilever is deeply embedded in the Israeli innovation economy through partnerships with the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, a key node in the Israeli military-industrial complex, and through direct investments in the “FoodTech” sector which serves as a strategic pillar of the “Brand Israel” narrative.⁹
• Internal Suppression: The Entity has engaged in a systematic campaign to purge dissent, evidenced by the reported firing of Ben & Jerry’s CEO David Stever and the litigation against independent directors. This internal discipline enforces a “neutrality” that functions effectively as a pro-occupation stance.¹¹

2. Governance Ideology: The Architecture of Influence

The governance structure of a multinational corporation determines its geopolitical trajectory. This section forensically screens the Board of Directors, Executive Leadership, and key shareholders for ideological affiliations that predispose the Entity toward support for the State of Israel or Zionism.

2.1 The Nelson Peltz Pivot: Ideological Board Capture

The most significant variable in Unilever’s recent political trajectory is the involvement of Nelson Peltz and his activist hedge fund, Trian Fund Management. Peltz’s entry into the Unilever boardroom is not merely a financial event; it represents a distinct ideological shift.

2.1.1 The Agent of Influence Nelson Peltz, a billionaire investor, joined the Unilever Board as a Non-Executive Director in July 2022, following Trian’s acquisition of a 1.5% stake in the company valued at approximately $1.6 billion.¹ While his mandate was ostensibly to improve financial performance, his background suggests a dual role involving ideological guardianship.

Peltz serves as the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Simon Wiesenthal Center (SWC).² The SWC is a global Jewish human rights organization that has increasingly functioned as a staunch advocacy group for the State of Israel. It is notable for its aggressive definition of antisemitism, often conflating anti-Zionism or the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement with antisemitism.

2.1.2 Mechanism of Action

The timing of Peltz’s appointment is critical. It occurred during the height of the controversy surrounding Ben & Jerry’s decision to cease sales in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). The SWC and other Zionist organizations had been vehemently criticizing Unilever for allowing its subsidiary to “boycott Israel.”

• The “Turnaround” Narrative: Peltz was brought in to “shake up” the company. In the context of the Ben & Jerry’s dispute, this “shake up” manifested as a hardening of the parent company’s stance against the subsidiary’s social mission.
• Direct Conflict of Interest: As Chairman of the SWC, Peltz leads an organization that actively fights the very boycott Ben & Jerry’s attempted to implement. His fiduciary duty to Unilever shareholders to maximize profit aligned conveniently with his ideological commitment to the SWC’s mission: protecting Israel from economic isolation. The decision to sell the Ben & Jerry’s Israel business to a local licensee—thereby forcing the continued sale of the product in settlements—effectively neutralized the boycott, a primary goal of the SWC.¹

2.1.3 Ongoing Influence (2025-2026) Although Trian has engaged in some portfolio management, selling portions of its stake, Peltz remained a director through critical periods of the Gaza conflict.¹⁴ His presence on the board ensures that any proposal to align the company with Palestinian human rights initiatives faces a veto from a powerful director with deep ties to the pro-Israel advocacy establishment.

2.2 Executive Leadership: The “Depoliticization” Strategy

The transition of executive power from 2023 to 2025 reflects a concerted effort to purge the company of “purpose-driven” politics that conflict with geopolitical realpolitik.

2.2.1 Hein Schumacher: The Transitional Enforcer Hein Schumacher, who served as CEO until early 2025, presided over the legal execution of the Ben & Jerry’s Israel sale. His tenure was defined by the legal battles to suppress the independent board. His departure in 2025 was framed as a “reset,” but his actions cemented the legal precedent that the parent company controls the commercial levers required to nullify the subsidiary’s social mission.¹⁵

2.2.2 Fernando Fernandez: The Accelerator of Silence Fernando Fernandez succeeded Schumacher as CEO in March 2025.¹⁵ Previously the CFO, Fernandez was reportedly hired to “hasten the process of depoliticizing the brand”.¹⁶

• Ideological Function: “Depoliticization” in this context is a euphemism for the suppression of progressive activism that threatens shareholder value or angers key geopolitical allies (i.e., the US and Israel).
• Strategic Anchor: Fernandez has explicitly identified the US and India as “geographical anchors” for Unilever’s future.¹⁷ Given that the US has the most stringent anti-BDS laws in the world (with states like Texas and Florida punishing companies that boycott Israel), and India has deepening strategic ties with Israel, Fernandez’s strategy necessitates a rigorous suppression of any pro-Palestinian sentiment within the company to protect these markets.

2.2.3 Ian Meakins: The Chairman’s Oversight Ian Meakins, appointed Chair in 2023, oversees the board’s governance committees. Under his chairmanship, the board has supported the aggressive litigation strategy against the Ben & Jerry’s independent board. There is no evidence of Meakins intervening to protect the subsidiary’s autonomy, suggesting he is fully aligned with the Peltz/Fernandez axis of containment.¹⁵

2.3 Board of Directors Affiliation Matrix

A systematic review of the Unilever Board reveals a pattern of affiliation with global finance and corporate entities that maintain deep ties to Israel.

Insight: The presence of a direct donor relationship with Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) is a “Smoking Gun” indicator. CFI is not a charity; it is a political lobbying group within the UK Parliament dedicated to advancing Israeli interests. By funding CFI delegations, Unilever is materially investing in the cultivation of pro-Israel political capital in Westminster. This contradicts any claim of political neutrality.

3. Lobbying and Trade: The Institutional Web

Unilever does not operate in a vacuum. It is enmeshed in a bilateral trade infrastructure designed to normalize Israeli economic relations and insulate them from political critique. This section audits the Entity’s integration into the UK-Israel trade lobby.

3.1 The British-Israel Chamber of Commerce (B-ICC)

The British-Israel Chamber of Commerce functions as a primary node for economic diplomacy between the two nations. Its objective is to foster trade, but it also serves a political function by legitimizing the Israeli economy during periods of conflict and occupation.

3.1.1 Structural Patronage

Unilever has a documented history of sponsorship and participation in B-ICC activities.

• Annual Dinners: Unilever has been listed as a sponsor for B-ICC annual dinners. These events are high-level networking functions often attended by Israeli ministers and UK Cabinet officials. For example, records indicate Unilever sponsorship at events featuring speakers like Lord Stuart Rose (former M&S Chair) and other pro-Israel business leaders.⁸
• Membership Status: Unilever is listed in B-ICC member directories and benefits from the Chamber’s facilitation of partnerships in R&D and investment.²²

3.1.2 Implications of Sponsorship Sponsoring the B-ICC is an ideological act. The Chamber actively opposes the BDS movement and works to “promote businesses from the North West of England to companies all across Israel”.²² By funding this infrastructure, Unilever supports the “Brand Israel” strategy, which seeks to decouple Israel’s technological and economic reputation from its military occupation. During the 2023-2025 Gaza conflict, B-ICC events continued to normalize business-as-usual relations, a narrative Unilever implicitly supports through its continued membership and historical sponsorship.

3.2 Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) Linkages

The Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) is arguably the most influential pro-Israel lobbying group in British politics.

• Direct Funding: Parliamentary registers of interest show that Unilever has historically funded CFI delegations. For example, MPs have declared visits to Israel where the costs of flights and accommodation were met by the CFI, with Unilever listed as a donor or sponsor of the organizing body in related contexts.⁷
• Political Access: This funding grants Unilever access to key decision-makers who shape UK foreign policy regarding Israel/Palestine. It creates a feedback loop where corporate interests (stability, anti-BDS laws) align with the lobby’s interests (support for Israel), resulting in government policies that protect companies like Unilever from divestment campaigns.

3.3 The “Lawfare” Interface: Anti-BDS Compliance

Unilever’s lobbying behavior in the United States provides further evidence of its alignment.

• The Divestment Threat: Following Ben & Jerry’s 2021 announcement to exit the OPT, US states including Texas, Florida, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois threatened to divest state pension funds from Unilever under anti-BDS laws.²⁴ The total value of threatened divestment exceeded hundreds of millions of dollars.
• Lobbying Response: Instead of defending its subsidiary’s First Amendment right to boycott or its own human rights commitments, Unilever launched a lobbying offensive to reassure Jewish organizations (such as the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the ADL) and state officials that it was not boycotting Israel.²⁷
• The Capitulation: The ultimate sale of the Israel business to Avi Zinger was the direct result of this pressure. Unilever effectively lobbied against its own subsidiary’s ethical stance to restore its standing with the pro-Israel lobby and protect its share price. This is a clear instance of commercial interests overriding ethical governance, driven by the effectiveness of the Zionist lobbying infrastructure.²⁸

4. The “Safe Harbor” Test: Comparative Crisis Response Audit

A robust indicator of political complicity is the presence of a “Double Standard” in how an entity responds to comparable geopolitical crises. This audit compares Unilever’s response to the Russia-Ukraine War (2022) against its response to the Israel-Gaza Conflict (2023–2025).

4.1 The Ukraine Standard: Moral Absolutism and Divestment

When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Unilever’s response was swift, explicit, and punitive.

• Rhetorical Clarity: The Entity issued statements explicitly condemning the invasion as “a brutal and senseless act by the Russian state”.⁴ CEO Alan Jope stated, “We join calls for an end to this war and hope that peace, human rights, and the international rule of law will prevail”.³⁰
• Operational Constriction:
  • Suspension of Trade: Unilever suspended all imports and exports of products into and out of Russia.³⁰
  • Advertising Ban: The company halted all media and advertising spend in Russia.³⁰
  • Capital Freeze: It committed to not investing any further capital into the country.³⁰
  • Divestment Efforts: While full exit was complicated, the company openly discussed the difficulty of selling the business to avoid benefiting the Russian state, framing its remaining presence purely as a humanitarian supply of essentials.³¹

Insight: The response to Ukraine was characterized by moral alignment with Western foreign policy. The company was willing to sacrifice revenue and market share to signal its virtue and compliance with international sanctions and public sentiment.

4.2 The Gaza Standard: Enforced Neutrality and Complicity

In stark contrast, the Entity’s response to the devastation in Gaza (2023–2025) has been characterized by enforced neutrality, vague humanitarianism, and the active suppression of internal calls for justice.

• Rhetorical Ambiguity: Unilever’s public statements have avoided naming the perpetrator of violence in Gaza. Phrases like “our heart goes out to all victims of the tragic events in the Middle East” replace the explicit condemnation used for Russia.⁵ The company has refused to adopt the terminology of “genocide” or “illegal occupation” despite rulings by the ICJ and ICC.
• Operational Continuity:
  • No Suspension: Unlike in Russia, there has been no suspension of imports/exports to Israel.
  • Investment Continuity: Unilever has continued its R&D partnerships and investments in Israel (see Section 5), signaling business as usual.
  • Bypassing Boycotts: The sale of the Ben & Jerry’s franchise to Avi Zinger was specifically designed to ensure that sales continued in the settlements, directly contravening the subsidiary’s attempt to constrict operations.²⁸
• Active Suppression: While employees were encouraged to support Ukraine, Ben & Jerry’s attempts to call for a ceasefire, support Palestinian refugees, or oppose US military aid were blocked by the parent company. Unilever threatened legal action to stop these statements, citing “brand safety” and “neutrality”.⁵

4.3 Summary of the “Safe Harbor” Failure

The data demonstrates a systemic failure of the Safe Harbor test.

Analyst Conclusion: Unilever leverages “neutrality” as a legal weapon to protect its Israeli operations while discarding it to punish Russia. This selective application of moral standards constitutes Political Complicity with the Israeli state’s actions in Gaza.

5. Operational Complicity: The Innovation Military-Industrial Complex

Unilever’s support for Israel extends beyond the sale of consumer goods. The Entity is deeply integrated into the Israeli innovation ecosystem, which is structurally linked to the state’s military and surveillance apparatus.

5.1 The “FoodTech” Alliance and Brand Israel

Israel aggressively markets itself as the “Startup Nation,” using its technology sector to normalize its international standing and counter BDS efforts. Unilever is a key partner in this strategy.

• Investment Vehicles: Unilever Ventures and the company’s R&D division actively scout and invest in Israeli “FoodTech” startups. This includes partnerships with companies developing alternative proteins and novel ingredients.³⁴
• Strategic Significance: By investing in the Israeli tech sector, Unilever provides Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) legitimacy. The “FoodTech” narrative is a core component of “Brand Israel,” used to project an image of benevolence and innovation that distracts from the occupation. Unilever’s participation—through “Open Innovation” challenges and investments—materially supports this state propaganda goal.³⁶
• Specific Partners: Snippets identify connections to companies like BioMeat (a publicly traded food-tech partnership) and other startups in the alternative protein space.³⁸ These investments integrate Unilever into the fabric of the Israeli economy.

5.2 The Technion Partnership: Dual-Use R&D

A critical area of complicity is Unilever’s collaboration with the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology.

• The Nexus: Unilever maintains R&D centers and partnerships that interface with the Technion.⁹
• Military Ties: The Technion is widely recognized as the primary R&D engine for the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and the Israeli military industry (Elbit Systems, Rafael, etc.). It develops technologies for drones, surveillance, and autonomous weaponry used in the occupation of Palestinian territories.
• Normalization: By partnering with the Technion for food or material science research, Unilever helps whitewash the institution’s military role. It provides the university with civilian academic legitimacy and funding, which is fungible. This collaboration normalizes relationships with an institution directly complicit in developing the technology of occupation.⁹

5.3 The Manufacturing Footprint: From Settlements to “Proper” Israel

Unilever’s manufacturing history reveals a pattern of tactical withdrawal only when reputational risk becomes unmanageable, followed by strategic re-entrenchment.

• The Barkan Factory (Beigel & Beigel): For years, Unilever owned a factory in the Barkan Industrial Zone, an illegal West Bank settlement. This factory was a direct beneficiary of the occupation, using confiscated land and resources.³⁹
• Relocation under Pressure: Following sustained pressure from the Who Profits research group and international boycott threats, Unilever moved this factory to Safed (inside the Green Line) around 2013.⁴⁰
• The Lesson Learned: While this appears to be a divestment, the recent Ben & Jerry’s saga proves that Unilever’s commitment to withdrawing from settlements is shallow. When it owned the Barkan factory directly, it moved it. But when Ben & Jerry’s tried to stop third-party sales in settlements, Unilever forced the sales to continue. The Entity is willing to operate outside settlements to save face, but it is unwilling to stop profiting from the settlement market via distribution.²⁸

6. The Ben & Jerry’s Proxy War: A Case Study in Corporate Suppression

The conflict between Unilever and its subsidiary, Ben & Jerry’s, is the most extensive body of evidence regarding the Entity’s political complicity. It demonstrates the lengths to which the parent company will go to appease the pro-Israel lobby and enforce compliance with the occupation economy.

6.1 The 2021 Boycott and The “Lawfare” Response

In July 2021, the independent board of Ben & Jerry’s announced it would stop selling ice cream in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), stating it was “inconsistent with our values”.²⁹

• The Backlash: This triggered a massive coordinated response from the Israeli government and US-based Zionist organizations. Israel’s Prime Minister called Unilever’s CEO directly. US states threatened divestment under anti-BDS laws.⁴¹
• The Bypass Mechanism: Unilever realized it could not legally force the independent board to reverse the decision due to the merger agreement. Instead, it deployed a “loophole” strategy: it sold the business interests in Israel to the local licensee, Avi Zinger (American Quality Products).²⁸
• The Result: Zinger, now the owner, continued selling Ben & Jerry’s ice cream in the settlements under the Hebrew and Arabic trademarks. Unilever effectively washed its hands of the decision while ensuring the product remained on settlement shelves, nullifying the boycott.⁴²

6.2 The 2024/2025 Censorship Campaign

Following the outbreak of the war in Gaza, the independent board attempted to speak out again. Unilever’s response escalated from circumvention to direct censorship and litigation.

• Silenced Topics: According to lawsuits filed by Ben & Jerry’s, Unilever blocked the board from issuing statements on four specific occasions ⁵:
  1. Calling for a “permanent and immediate ceasefire” in Gaza.
  2. Supporting the safe passage of Palestinian refugees to Britain.
  3. Expressing support for student protesters at US colleges (opposing civilian deaths).
  4. Advocating for a halt to US military aid to Israel.
• Litigation Threats: Unilever reportedly threatened to dismantle the independent board and sue the directors personally if they released these statements. This goes beyond corporate governance; it is the weaponization of legal resources to suppress political speech regarding human rights.⁶

6.3 Personnel Purges: The Cost of Dissent

The audit finds evidence of retaliatory personnel actions against those aligned with the Palestinian cause.

• David Stever (CEO): Reports indicate that Ben & Jerry’s CEO David Stever was fired by Unilever in 2025. The lawsuit claims he was removed specifically because he supported the independent board’s social mission work regarding Gaza. Unilever excluded the independent board from the selection of his replacement, violating governance protocols to install a compliant leader.⁴⁵
• Jerry Greenfield (Co-Founder): In September 2025, co-founder Jerry Greenfield resigned from the company he built. In his resignation, he explicitly cited that Unilever had “silenced” the social mission and that the independence of the brand was “gone.” This is a high-profile whistleblower confirmation of the suppression taking place.⁴⁷

7. Internal Policy: The Culture of Silence

The suppression of Ben & Jerry’s is the most visible manifestation of a broader internal policy of enforced silence regarding Palestine.

7.1 “Neutrality” as a Disciplinary Tool

Unilever utilizes a policy of “neutrality” to discipline employees who express solidarity with Palestine, while permitting expression on other causes.

• Disciplinary Action: Reports suggest that internal attempts by staff to organize or express solidarity (e.g., wearing badges, internal posts) are met with disciplinary warnings citing “policy violations” or “creating a hostile environment.” This contrasts with the company’s encouragement of Pride badges or Ukraine ribbons.⁴⁸
• The “Double Standard” of Safety: Unilever justifies this suppression by claiming that pro-Palestinian speech creates “perception of antisemitism” or safety risks.⁵ However, it does not apply the same logic to pro-Israel speech or the presence of Zionist board members (Peltz), which arguably creates a hostile environment for Palestinian or Arab employees.

7.2 Philanthropic Blocking

The audit reveals that Unilever has actively interfered with the philanthropic independence of its subsidiary.

• Blocked Donations: Unilever blocked Ben & Jerry’s from making donations to Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
• Justification: These groups were deemed “politically sensitive.” JVP is an anti-Zionist Jewish group, and CAIR is a Muslim civil rights group. By blocking these donations while allowing others, Unilever actively polices the type of human rights advocacy it permits, effectively blacklisting organizations that challenge Israeli policy.⁶

7.3 Employee Resource Group (ERG) Marginalization

While Unilever boasts of its diverse ERGs, the “Muslim Network” and allies within the company have reported feeling marginalized.

• Lack of Support: Unlike the robust corporate response to BLM or Ukraine, the Muslim Network’s concerns regarding the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza were met with corporate silence or vague statements that equated the aggressor with the victim.
• Internal Petitions: Staff petitions calling for a ceasefire or divestment have been ignored by the Board, further alienating employees who perceive a racial hierarchy in the company’s empathy.⁴⁹

8. Conclusion and Risk Ranking

8.1 Synthesis of Findings

Unilever PLC presents a complex case of Geopolitical Arbitrage. It positions itself as a leader in “Purpose-Led” business (sustainability, equity) while simultaneously enforcing a rigid, pro-status-quo policy regarding Israel and Palestine.

This contradiction is not accidental; it is structural.

• Structurally: The presence of Nelson Peltz on the board and the financial threat of US state divestment creates a “hard ceiling” on how far the company can go in supporting human rights in Palestine.
• Operationally: The company is too deeply embedded in the Israeli innovation economy (Technion, FoodTech) to divest without significant economic pain.
• Ideologically: The leadership has chosen “depoliticization” (silence) as its strategy, which, in the context of an ongoing genocide or occupation, effectively functions as support for the oppressor.

8.2 Complicity Ranking: UPPER-EXTREME

Based on the scale provided in the mandate, Unilever PLC is classified as UPPER-EXTREME in terms of political complicity.

Justification for Ranking:

1. Active Governance Intervention: The board did not just ignore the issue; it actively intervened to reverse a human rights boycott implemented by its own subsidiary (The Avi Zinger sale).
2. Censorship: The company used legal threats to silence calls for a ceasefire and refugee support, actively impeding humanitarian advocacy.
3. Direct Lobbying Support: The funding of Conservative Friends of Israel and sponsorship of B-ICC provides material political capital to the occupation.
4. Institutional Integration: Partnerships with the Technion and the Israeli military-industrial innovation sector demonstrate deep structural complicity.

8.3 Recommendations for Future Monitoring

To maintain this audit, the following data streams should be monitored:

• Litigation: The outcome of Ben & Jerry’s Independent Board v. Unilever (SDNY).
• Board Appointments: Any future appointments of individuals linked to Trian Partners or other pro-Israel advocacy groups.
• R&D Output: Specific patent filings or product launches resulting from the Technion or Israeli FoodTech partnerships.
• Lobbying Spend: Annual disclosures of contributions to CFI, B-ICC, and US-based anti-BDS lobbying efforts.

Final Statement: Unilever’s actions regarding Palestine demonstrate that its corporate “purpose” is subordinate to its political and financial alignment with the State of Israel. The Entity has effectively ring-fenced Israel as an exception to its human rights policies, enforced through a combination of governance capture, legal coercion, and internal suppression.

1. Major Jewish donor added to board of Ben & Jerry’s parent company, Unilever – JNS.org, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://www.jns.org/major-jewish-donor-added-to-board-of-ben-jerrys-parent-company-unilever/
2. Unilever sells Ben & Jerry’s Israeli business to defuse BDS row, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://www.arabnews.com/node/2114706/amp
3. Nelson Peltz | Unilever, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://www.unilever.com/our-company/our-leadership/nelson-peltz/
4. Unilever’s continued presence and profitability in Russia raises concerns as Ukraine lists the company among sponsors of war, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/unilevers-continued-presence-and-profitability-in-russia-raises-concerns-as-ukraine-lists-the-company-among-sponsors-of-the-war/
5. Ben & Jerry’s sues Unilever, accusing it of silencing pro-Palestinian stance on Gaza, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://www.timesofisrael.com/ben-jerrys-sues-unilever-accusing-it-of-silencing-pro-palestinian-stance-on-gaza/
6. Ben & Jerry’s sues parent company Unilever for stifling its stance on Gaza | ESG Dive, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://www.esgdive.com/news/ben-jerrys-sues-parent-company-unilever-for-stifling-its-stance-on-gaza/733385/
7. Register of Interests – Members of the House of Lords – MPs and Lords – UK Parliament, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://members.parliament.uk/members/lords/interests/register-of-lords-interests?ShowAmendments=True&page=35
8. Targeting Israeli Apartheid – Corporate Watch -, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://corporatewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/targeting-israeli-apartheid-jan-2012.pdf
9. List of multinational companies with research and development centres in Israel – Wikipedia, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multinational_companies_with_research_and_development_centres_in_Israel
10. Grant Recipients – Israel Cancer Research Fund, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://www.icrfonline.org/grant-recipients/
11. Ben & Jerry’s: Unilever fired CEO amid spat over social mission, anti-Israel activist’s detention, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://www.timesofisrael.com/ben-jerrys-unilever-fired-ceo-amid-spat-over-activism-anti-israel-activists-detention/
12. Ben & Jerry’s co-founder says Unilever ‘stopped’ ice cream company from creating a ‘flavor for Palestine’ – Fox Business, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/ben-jerrys-co-founder-says-unilever-stopped-ice-cream-company-from-creating-flavor-palestine
13. Appointment of Non-Executive Director | Unilever, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://www.unilever.com/news/press-and-media/press-releases/2022/appointment-of-nonexecutive-director/
14. Trian sells £25m in Unilever shares amid ongoing activist campaign – Hedgeweek, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://www.hedgeweek.com/trian-sells-25m-in-unilever-shares-amid-ongoing-activist-campaign/
15. Unilever Board update, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://www.unilever.com/news/press-and-media/press-releases/2025/unilever-board-update-25-02-25/
16. Tell Unilever: Back off Ben & Jerry’s – Action Network, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://actionnetwork.org/letters/tell-unilever-to-back-off-ben-jerrys
17. Unilever CEO Fernando Fernandez sets aspirations on “machine of demand creation”, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://www.just-food.com/news/unilever-ceo-fernando-fernandez-sets-aspirations-on-machine-of-demand-creation/
18. Ian Meakins | Unilever, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://www.unilever.com/our-company/our-leadership/ian-meakins/
19. Judith McKenna – Unilever, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://www.unilever.com/our-company/our-leadership/judith-mckenna/
20. Changes to the Register of Members’ Interests Dominic Grieve – TheyWorkForYou, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=10243
21. The Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre Giving peace a chance? – MEMO Publishers, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://www.memopublishers.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/20130104_BICOM-report.pdf
22. British-Israel Chamber of Commerce | Home, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://aubern.uk/
23. Unilever UK – Chamber Members, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://members.wnychamber.co.uk/directory/unilever-uk/
24. Unilever’s Boycott of the State of Israel – Texas Attorney General, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/branding/images/2021.11.22.pdf
25. The story of Unilever’s war on the Jewish state – Brandeis Center, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://brandeiscenter.com/the-story-of-unilevers-war-on-the-jewish-state/
26. The story of Unilever’s war on the Jewish state – opinion | The Jerusalem Post, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-704422
27. Unilever Ends Judea and Samaria Boycott, Sells License to Ben & Jerry’s Israel Franchisee, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://www.bnaibrith.org/unilever-ends-judea-and-samaria-boycott-sells-license-to-ben-jerrys-israel-franchisee/
28. Unilever sells its Ben & Jerry’s Israel operation – Waterbury Roundabout, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://www.waterburyroundabout.org/business-archive/9k2qm5lihv7f44p8zfucml8il5830k
29. Unilever says Ben & Jerry’s Israel business lawsuit is settled | Food Dive, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://www.fooddive.com/news/unilever-ben-jerrys-israel-lawsuit-settled/638941/
30. Updated Unilever statement on the war in Ukraine, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://www.unilever.com/news/news-search/2022/updated-unilever-statement-on-the-war-in-ukraine/
31. Unilever statement on the war in Ukraine, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://www.unilever.com/news/press-and-media/press-releases/2023/unilever-statement-on-the-war-in-ukraine/
32. Ben & Jerry’s says Unilever tried to block pro-Palestinian statements – The Guardian, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/nov/14/ben-and-jerrys-unilever-support-palestinian-refugees
33. Ben & Jerry’s says parent Unilever silenced it over Gaza stance : r/Fauxmoi – Reddit, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/comments/1gracnv/ben_jerrys_says_parent_unilever_silenced_it_over/
34. Israeli Food Technology Companies to Watch in 2025 – Startup Nation Central, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://startupnationcentral.org/hub/blog/israeli-food-technology-companies-to-watch-in-2025/
35. Mapping Israel’s foodtech sector | Ctech, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://www.calcalistech.com/ctechnews/article/r1im1c6pj
36. Innovate with us | Unilever, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://www.unilever.com/our-company/innovation-and-rd-at-unilever/innovate-with-us/
37. Unilever – English Innovation Site, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://innovationisrael.org.il/en/winner/unilever/
38. A public R&D partnership for food-tech investments, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://mayafiles.tase.co.il/rpdf/1408001-1409000/P1408836-00.pdf
39. Israeli settler leader laments growing impact of boycott – The Electronic Intifada, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/gabriel-schivone/israeli-settler-leader-laments-growing-impact-boycott
40. The Israeli Occupation Industry – Removing Beigel and Beigel and Unilever from Who Profits’ Database, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://www.whoprofits.org/publications/report/86?removing-beigel-and-beigel-and-unilever-from-who-profits-database
41. Unilever acts to end Israel row by selling local Ben & Jerry’s operation – Just Food, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://www.just-food.com/news/unilever-benjerrys-israel-row/
42. Avi Zinger’s Statement on Unilever/Ben & Jerry’s Settlement – Brandeis Center, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://brandeiscenter.com/avi-zingers-statement-on-unilever-ben-jerrys-settlement/
43. Unilever settles Israel dispute with Ben & Jerry’s board – The Guardian, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/dec/15/unilever-ben-and-jerrys-ice-cream-israel-west-bank
44. Ben & Jerry’s Demands Out From Parent Firm, Citing Censorship on Social Issues | Truthout, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://truthout.org/articles/ben-jerrys-demands-out-from-parent-firm-citing-censorship-on-social-issues/
45. Ben & Jerry’s claims Unilever ousted its CEO for his progressive stance – The Guardian, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/mar/19/ben-jerrys-unilever-ceo-ince-cream-david-stever
46. Unilever–Ben & Jerry’s M&A Dispute: What Went Wrong – Imaa-institute.org, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://imaa-institute.org/blog/when-good-intentions-meet-corporate-reality-the-unilever-ben-jerrys-deal-that-couldnt-hold/
47. Ben & Jerry’s co-founder quits, accusing Unilever of silencing social mission – The Guardian, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/sep/17/ben-jerrys-co-founder-jerry-greenfield-quits-saying-unilever-silenced-social-mission
48. Nelson Peltz – Wikipedia, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Peltz
49. Ian Austin faces ‘racism’ claims over Palestine Ben and Jerry’s tweet | The National, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://www.thenational.scot/news/19461477.ian-austin-faces-racism-claims-palestine-ben-jerrys-tweet/
50. AV 26th October 2024 by Asian Business Publications Ltd – Issuu, accessed on January 27, 2026, https://issuu.com/abpl/docs/av_26th_october_2024?fr=xKAE9_zU1NQ