Ben & Jerry’s Goes Vegan: Why Businesses Should Respond to Social Causes

People are stoked about Ben & Jerry’s recent announcement that it will start offering four new vegan flavours this month.

The Vermont-based ice cream manufacturer finally caved to public pressure from a 2014 Change.org petition urging the company to stay true to its socially progressive roots and offer vegan ice cream.

Related: Rainbow bagels are breaking the internet

The petition points out the company’s longstanding commitment to causes such as Fair Trade, improved animal welfare and marriage equality — and then suggests that non-dairy ice cream will help address global warming.

“There is now a scientific consensus that animal agriculture is the single largest contributor to global warming, outstripping even the transportation industry in its production of greenhouse gases,” states the petition, which around 28,500 people signed including U.S. Senator Cory Booker.

Ben & Jerry’s vegan offering raises one important question: Should businesses change their products to accommodate social causes and remain relevant to the times?

The answer: Absolutely.

Related: Marketers cash in on Millennials high end tastes

Historically, companies have made drastic changes to their products, business models and identity because consumer boycotts hit their pocketbook. A 2011 study shows that for every day a boycotted company is in the news, its stock prices declined. Furthermore, there is some indication that consumer boycotts are on the rise. This implies an even stronger need for businesses to be proactive in dealing with the changing tides of public opinion. Had Ben & Jerry’s not acted quickly with their vegan ice cream a boycott might eventually have forced their hand.

Below are few examples of companies that faced consumer boycotts related to social causes and made significant changes in order to save company profits:

Nike – 1990s: The consumer boycott that hit Nike in the 90s still has ramifications to this day, as the company struggles to project an image of being a sustainability leader. Back then, the company was outed for using child labor in developing countries and experienced declining stock prices fell. Then-CEO Phil Knight acknowledged the company had slave wages, forced overtime and arbitrary abuse at factories, and vowed to make improvements. Nike changed their ways, and now its factories have working conditions similar to other factories worldwide.

The consumer boycott that hit Nike in the 90s still has ramifications to this day, as the company struggles to project an image of being a sustainability leader. Back then, the company was outed for using child labor in developing countries and experienced declining stock prices fell. Then-CEO Phil Knight acknowledged the company had slave wages, forced overtime and arbitrary abuse at factories, and vowed to make improvements. Nike changed their ways, and now its factories have working conditions similar to other factories worldwide. Johnson & Johnson – 2012: In 2012, Johnson & Johnson finally bowed to a three year boycott calling for the company to remove a formaldehyde-releasing preservative from all its baby products. The boycott sprung from a report released by the US Campaign for Safe Cosmetics that singled out the company for its use of potentially cancer-causing chemicals in baby shampoo.

In 2012, Johnson & Johnson finally bowed to a three year boycott calling for the company to remove a formaldehyde-releasing preservative from all its baby products. The boycott sprung from a report released by the US Campaign for Safe Cosmetics that singled out the company for its use of potentially cancer-causing chemicals in baby shampoo. Nestle – 2010: Action was swift at Nestle back in 2010 when Greenpeace launched an intense campaign against the food and beverage company for using environmentally unsustainable palm oil bought from a supplier known to cause rainforest devastation. Just eight weeks after the campaign launched, Nestle promised a zero deforestation policy in its palm oil supply chain.

Action was swift at Nestle back in 2010 when Greenpeace launched an intense campaign against the food and beverage company for using environmentally unsustainable palm oil bought from a supplier known to cause rainforest devastation. Just eight weeks after the campaign launched, Nestle promised a zero deforestation policy in its palm oil supply chain. Fruit of the Loom – 2010: Back in 2010, a year-long university student boycott in the U.S., Canada and U.K cost Fruit of the Loom an estimated $50 million. The underwear manufacturer eventually caved to public pressure and reopened an Indonesian factory it shutdown after workers unionized. The company restored all employee jobs along with union rights, as well as awarded them $2.5 million in compensation.

Related: Heinz’s adorable wiener dogs commercial and more Super Bowl ads

The above represents just a fraction of businesses that have made drastic changes to products, operations or identity because of social causes.

The reality is that concerns about employee working conditions, environmental sustainability and public health will never go away. The sooner business can accept this, the better off they’ll be.