Although most famous for their innovative ice cream flavors (Rocky Road, Phish Food, and Cherry Garcia to name a few), Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, founders of Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream, are equally as concerned about fulfilling their commitment to social change.

In a speech hosted by College Democrats at Northwestern University on November 17, 2009, the ice-cream super couple spoke about their business and lifelong commitment to giving back to the community.

The international company began its journey in Burlington, Vermont in 1978.  Socially conscious from the start, Ben and Jerry, opened their first scoop shop in a renovated gas station.  As they began to expand their business, Ben and Jerry struggled to face the fact that they were becoming “business people,” and they feared that by undergoing this transformation into a larger company they would end up embodying negative business practices such as pollution and unfair treatment of employees.   For a brief period, the two considered shutting down.  But in the end the pair took a different and more innovative approach.  They decided to pursue business growth based on a redefined goal of business.  In contrast to the traditional business model of profit maximization, Ben and Jerry decided to adopt a 2-part bottom line based on both profit and giving back to the community.

In 1985 they established Ben and Jerry’s Foundation, which awards grants to grassroots nonprofit organizations through the US “which facilitate progressive social change by addressing the underlying conditions of societal and environmental problems.” In addition to this, Ben and Jerry believe in using the voice of business to promote social change, so Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream uses their popularity to raise awareness about social issues.  Past collaborations have included the World Wildlife Fund and Rock the Vote and they have named ice creams to promote such social issue causes as fair trade and sustainability.

The story of Ben and Jerry raises many questions related GES.  The company is an example of a for profit company that at the same time seriously pursues social change, and whose ideals are closely aligned with those of GES, even though it is very different from the typical non profit organizations that we associate with engagement.

Chris Day (a former facilitator for GES) introduced the panel, which included Will Reno, a professor of Political Science at NU; Dr. Marc Levin, an aid worker for Doctors Without Borders; and Johanne Sekkenes, the Director of Operational Support for Doctors Without Borders.  Will Reno moderated, and, guessing correctly that many of the students in the audience were hoping to follow in the speakers’ footsteps, he began by asking Dr. Levin and Sekkenes how they got to where they were, so take note: they both agreed that for international development work, knowing 2-4 languages was crucial, as well as study abroad. In fact, Dr. Levine first got involved with Doctors Without Borders through a study abroad program he did in Kenya his Junior year of college.  His main piece of advice was to “follow your dreams and passions and see where you land.”

They clarified the distinction between hunger and malnutrition: hunger relates to quantity of food, and malnutrition is a disease that relates to the quality of food.  One of the solutions that Doctors Without Borders has come up with to battle malnutrition is a product called “Plumpy’Nut,” a vitamin and nutrient fortified peanut-butter substance that, when added to a child’s daily meal, can help them recover from and avoid malnutrition.  Of the children they have treated with Plumpy’Nut, 95% of those with moderate malnutrition were cured, and 81% of those with severe malnutrition were cured.  However, they stressed that Plumpy’Nut is a safety net: what is really needed is prevention, which is a lot easier and cheaper than treatment, because treatment involves tube feeding, nurses and doctors, intensive personal care, specialized equipment, and more.

But why we should care?  10 million children die a year, and half of them, from malnutrition.  As Dr. Levin pointed out, this figure is comparable to that of genocide.  Additionally, this issue does not get much attention in the media, which tends to focus on things such as wars, infectious diseases, natural disasters.  Lastly, there are serious long-term health problems associated with malnutrition, and this has a lasting effect on a country’s development.  For example, one of the effects of malnutrition is a decreased IQ and learning capacity – and if thousands of children in the upcoming generations are malnourished, this will pose a huge obstacle for growth and development in many countries.

The speakers what their message for eager youths: communicate.  Discuss the issues, spread the word, be a voice for the kids that can’t advocate for themselves, put pressure on your local politicians, and if you want to get even more involved, fundraising is always needed.

I was left with several questions. First, how long does a child need to be on Plumpy’Nut before they are cured? Even after they are cured, where will they get nutritious food?  And, as is the problem with many international development and aid organizations, isn’t Doctors Without Borders simply putting a band-aid on the problem? I couldn’t help but leaving with the thought that though it is a wonderful and much-needed program that is doing a lot of good in the region, fundamentally government action is needed to address the problem at its roots.

For those interested in learning more about the issue, take a look at the book, “A Not So Natural Disaster.”

By CHRISTIE THOMPSON

Last night, I took an impromptu trip into the city (with my lovely GES co-chair) to catch what I could of the Chicago International Film Festival. I’m kicking myself for not going earlier, because the lineup this year was truly staggering – I think I heard over 145 films from 45 countries!

We were lucky enough to catch “My Neighbor, My Killer,” a documentary on the Rwandan Genocide. The film focuses on the Gacaca tribunals, a justice system in which citizen-judges try their own neighbors for crimes committed during the 1994 genocide. The set-up alone is disarmingly casual –prosecutors and defendants sit on the grass, speaking for themselves in front of a card-table of judges. No one is cuffed or restrained, before or after their sentencing.

The entire movie brought up several questions that we continued discussing long after we left the theater. At the end of the film, you watch as a woman who’s children were slaughtered by a man who was once her neighbor, announce that she has forgiven him and the judges should as well. They accept the appeal, and a man who killed so many is allowed to return home and rebuild his life.

I don’t think I was the only one left with incredibly mixed emotions. The woman, Felicite’s, capacity for forgiveness is astonishing, and some might say, commendable. It makes me wonder if the concept of an International Criminal Court is necessarily the best option. Are we merely imposing western concepts of punishment and justice on a culture built on forgiveness? Simultaneously, it was difficult and upsetting to see someone who has caused such insurmountable pain, as seen when the victims of these crimes discuss the loss of their children, go without repercussion. But what I consider to be the necessary process of justice may shift given the extenuating circumstances of Rwanda. How do you rebuild a nation with half of your citizens incarcerated? The question remains with the Rwandan people to find the fastest path to healing. It’s a question all of us GES-ers are asking too, finding ways to use social change and entrepreneurship to help this process of rebuilding.