A Swiss court decision has opened a new chapter in global climate justice by affirming the right of Indonesian fishermen from Pari Island to sue cement giant Holcim.
The ruling recognizes that communities most affected by climate change deserve access to courts, even when the alleged harm originates from multinational corporations operating far beyond their shores.
A Rare Example
In a landmark development for climate justice, a Swiss court has affirmed the right of four Indonesian fishermen from Pari Island to pursue legal action against the multinational cement company Holcim.
The case centers on the claim that Holcim’s carbon dioxide emissions have contributed to global climate change, driving sea level rise and increasingly severe tidal flooding that threatens the islanders’ homes, livelihoods, and very existence.
The decision marks a rare instance in which a civil court is being asked to hold a corporation accountable for its role in the climate crisis, and it has stirred international attention as an emerging precedent for climate litigation.
The lawsuit was first filed in January 2023 in the Canton of Zug, Switzerland, where Holcim maintains its global headquarters. Before the civil claim could proceed, the plaintiffs and their legal supporters attempted conciliation proceedings, a required step in Swiss civil procedure.
However, those efforts did not yield an agreement, prompting the formal lawsuit. The Swiss court’s recent ruling has now cleared the way for the case to move forward to an assessment of its merits—a significant step in the long legal journey.
The Plaintiffs and Their Demands
The four plaintiffs—Asmania, Arif, Edi, and Bobby—are residents of Pari Island, a low-lying Indonesian island in the Thousand Islands (Kepulauan Seribu) chain off the coast of Jakarta. The island is small and vulnerable, with much of its land mass barely above sea level.
In recent years, rising sea levels and more frequent tidal floods have damaged homes, contaminated freshwater sources, and made fishing, the primary livelihood of these men, more precarious.
The core of the lawsuit asserts that Holcim has contributed significantly to the climate crisis through its substantial and ongoing greenhouse gas emissions. Cement production is a carbon-intensive industry, and Holcim is among the largest global producers.
The plaintiffs are seeking compensation for the losses they have suffered, financial support for protective measures such as flood defenses and mangrove planting, and a rapid reduction in Holcim’s CO₂ emissions to mitigate future harm.
Legal Arguments and Corporate Response
Holcim has contested the suit on procedural and substantive grounds. One of the company’s principal arguments was that issues related to climate protection and emissions should be addressed through political and legislative processes rather than through the judiciary.
Holcim has also indicated that it plans to appeal the court’s ruling, maintaining that decisions about permissible emission levels are not appropriate for a civil court.
However, the Cantonal Court of Zug firmly rejected Holcim’s procedural objections in its decision announced on December 22, 2025. The judges ruled that the plaintiffs were entitled to legal protection, noting that climate change directly impacts their lives and livelihoods.
The court clarified that allowing the lawsuit to proceed did not replace governmental climate policy, but rather complemented broader efforts to address the climate crisis and provided legal recourse to individuals directly affected by environmental harm.
The court also dismissed arguments claiming that emissions reductions by a single company would be meaningless because other firms might increase theirs.
It emphasized that the harmful conduct of one actor cannot be justified simply because others engage in similar behavior, reinforcing the principle that corporate accountability is a valid legal question.
Significance for Climate Justice
The court’s decision to admit the lawsuit is significant not only for the plaintiffs from Pari Island but also for the broader global movement seeking legal avenues to address climate change.
Climate litigation has been evolving in recent years, with cases in various jurisdictions challenging governments and corporations to take responsibility for their contributions to environmental degradation.
Yet, it remains rare for a court—especially in a country like Switzerland—to allow a case against a major corporation to proceed on the basis that its emissions have harmed vulnerable communities in another part of the world.
Supporters of the lawsuit, including environmental groups and legal advocates, see this as an important step toward accountability.
They argue that corporations, especially those with outsized greenhouse gas footprints, must be subject to legal scrutiny when their activities contribute to climate harms that transcend borders.
The case also highlights the growing recognition that climate change is not solely a policy issue but one that intersects with human rights, economic survival, and justice for those on the frontlines of environmental change.
Looking Ahead
Although the Swiss court’s ruling does not in itself award damages or compel emission cuts, it opens the door for the plaintiffs to pursue their claims on the merits.
If the case continues successfully, it could set a powerful precedent for similar suits by communities in the Global South and elsewhere seeking to hold multinational corporations accountable for their environmental impacts.
The unfolding legal battles will be closely watched by activists, policymakers, and legal practitioners alike as part of the evolving landscape of climate accountability.
The reaffirmation of the fishermen’s right to sue reflects a broader shift in how courts can play a role in climate issues, offering a judicial forum for voices that have long felt marginalized in international debates over climate responsibility and justice.
