Corporate Accountability on Trial: What the Holcim Climate Case Means for Global Businesses
In a landmark decision, a Swiss court has agreed to hear a climate lawsuit brought by four Indonesian fishers from Pari Island in 2023 against Holcim, a Swiss-based company and one of the world’s largest cement producers.
The court’s recent ruling in December 2025 is the first admitted in Switzerland against a company, and only the second transnational litigation in which affected rightsholders from the Global South are suing a carbon major based in the Global North for its contribution to the climate crisis, a milestone that could reshape how transnational responsibility for environmental harms is understood.
The plaintiffs allege that Holcim’s historic and ongoing carbon emissions have directly contributed to climate‑driven flooding that now endangers their homes and livelihoods. [1] A Global Climate Forum study supports these claims, establishing a direct link between global warming and escalating climate losses on Pari Island. [1] [2]
Dismissing Holcim’s procedural objections, the court recognised that those affected by climate change deserve legal protection and emphasised that “every single contribution is essential” to addressing the climate crisis, rejecting Holcim’s claims that the flooding would occur regardless of their actions.
At the heart of the complaint is a call for backward- and forward-looking corporate accountability, with the plaintiffs seeking proportional compensation for climate-related damages, financial contributions toward flood-protection measures on Pari Island, and emissions reductions from Holcim of 43% by 2030 and 69% by 2040 (compared to 2019 levels), in line with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C goal. [1] [2]
Beyond the environmental implications and the expectations that corporate actors align their operations with global climate, the Holcim case reframes climate harm as a human rights issue. For communities whose livelihoods depend on climate‑sensitive environments, the failure of corporate actors to prevent and mitigate emissions is causing both ecological collapse and social injustice.
By bringing this case forward, the complainants added to a growing body of climate litigation across Europe holding corporations accountable for their contributions to climate change. In the Netherlands, a court ruled in a case against Shell that companies have a legal duty of care to mitigate climate impacts affecting human rights. In Germany, the RWE AG case established that corporations can be liable for climate-related damages beyond their national borders. Building on these precedents, a new lawsuit in the UK now seeks to hold Shell responsible for deaths, injuries, and damages from Typhoon Rai in the Philippines, linking the disaster to the company’s historical greenhouse gas emissions and prior knowledge of the risks. [3]
As climate cases led by Global South communities move forward, they will test the evolving boundaries of legal responsibility for transnational environmental harm in a warming world. They also reflect a growing readiness among courts to hold corporations accountable for their climate impacts – a potentially pivotal step toward integrating sustainability into global corporate governance and supply chains.
