Why a small island is taking on a global cement giant
On a low-lying island north of Jakarta, four residents have taken an unusual step to protect their home. They have sued Holcim, the Swiss-based cement group, in a civil case in Switzerland, arguing that the company’s past and present carbon emissions have helped drive sea level rise and coastal flooding that now threaten their island, Pulau Pari. The case, brought before the Cantonal Court of Zug, is testing whether a court in the country where a multinational is headquartered can order compensation and emissions cuts for climate harm experienced thousands of kilometers away.
Pulau Pari has about 1,500 residents, most living a few meters from the waterline. Floods now reach homes and shops more often. Beaches that draw visitors for snorkeling and fishing are shrinking. The plaintiffs, who include guesthouse manager Ibu Asmania and tourism worker Arif Pujianto, say climate change has made life harder each year. They are seeking modest compensation to repair damage and help fund local defenses. Each plaintiff asks for 3,600 Swiss francs to raise floors, fix walls and plant mangroves and other barriers. They also want an order requiring Holcim to reduce its global emissions in line with climate science, specifically by 43 percent by 2030 and 69 percent by 2040 compared with 2019 levels.
At the heart of the suit is a simple idea: companies that contributed to the problem should help pay to fix it and reduce the pollution that causes it. The residents rely on research that attributes 0.42 percent of all historical industrial carbon emissions to Holcim and its predecessors. They argue that the company should cover a proportional share of the island’s damages and invest in prevention. Support from civil society groups in Indonesia and Europe has helped bring the case to Switzerland after a required conciliation attempt in 2022 failed. If a court allows the case to proceed, it could become the first of its kind in Switzerland and a reference point for other communities on the front lines of climate change. More than 2,000 climate-related legal actions have been filed around the world, and cases targeting major emitters are growing in prominence.
Life on the front line of rising seas
Pulau Pari sits barely above the ocean, which is rising as the planet warms. When tides peak or storms push water ashore, roads submerge and salt water intrudes into wells that families rely on for drinking. Locals describe watching familiar shoreline markers vanish and seeing seawater lap at thresholds that were once safely dry. Environmental groups say roughly 11 percent of the island’s surface area has disappeared in recent years, with many residents fearful that much of it could be underwater by mid-century if warming continues.
Climate shifts have already changed how people work. The island formerly relied on seaweed farming, but warmer waters damaged crops and made the practice unviable. Many residents turned to tourism, running small guesthouses, renting boats, and selling food and supplies to visitors from Jakarta. That income is now at risk. Erosion has eaten into beaches, and flooding has damaged equipment, contaminated wells, and rusted motorbikes and boat engines. Fishermen, including Mustaghfirin, known locally as Bobby, report smaller catches and more dangerous conditions at sea, with weather swings that are harder to predict.
In response, residents have taken practical steps. They have piled stones into low dykes, planted mangroves and other vegetation to anchor sand, and raised floors on homes where possible. These measures help, but they cannot stop the water on their own. Resources are limited, and each season brings fresh repairs. The lawsuit seeks funds to expand these defenses and to support planning so the community’s adaptation work is not a patchwork of short-term fixes but a set of measures that can last.
The legal route through Switzerland
Before filing a civil complaint, Swiss procedure requires a conciliation step. The Pulau Pari residents initiated conciliation in the Canton of Zug in July 2022. No settlement followed. They then filed a lawsuit with the cantonal court in early 2023, supported by groups including Swiss Church Aid (HEKS), the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) and WALHI in Indonesia. In October 2023, the court granted the plaintiffs free legal aid, finding that they had insufficient funds and that their petition was not without chance of success. On September 3, 2025, the court held a preliminary hearing focused on admissibility. The judges must decide whether they are competent to hear the case and whether it meets procedural requirements. The merits, including evidence of harm and causation, would come later.
The plaintiffs’ demands combine two tracks rarely seen together in company climate suits. They seek proportional compensation and a court order that requires Holcim to reduce emissions in line with the Paris Agreement temperature goals. Their legal arguments draw on Article 28 of the Swiss Civil Code, which protects personality rights such as health and physical integrity, and Article 41 of the Code of Obligations, which provides for redress for harm caused unlawfully. The residents argue that Holcim’s historic and continuing emissions contribute to harmful flooding and erosion on Pulau Pari, placing their homes, livelihoods and health at risk.
Holcim says it is committed to climate action and argues that a civil court is not the right place to set emission levels. In a statement, the company framed the core question as a matter for lawmakers.
Holcim said: “In our opinion, who is allowed to emit how much CO2 is a competence of the legislator and not a question for a civil court”.
The company points to steps it says it has taken to cut emissions, including greater use of renewable energy and cement mixes that use less clinker, the most carbon-intensive ingredient in cement. Holcim says it has reduced CO2 emissions from its operations by more than 50 percent since 2015 and aims to reach net zero by 2050. The plaintiffs and NGO supporters say those commitments do not match the scale and urgency of the problem and do not address responsibility for damage already suffered on the island.
Why Holcim is in the spotlight
Cement is a heavy emitter of carbon for two reasons. Making clinker requires heating limestone to very high temperatures, which causes the rock to release CO2. Kilns are also usually powered by fossil fuels, adding more emissions. Industry estimates attribute roughly 7 percent of global CO2 emissions to cement production. Researchers who track corporate contributions to climate change have identified a group of large producers across energy and materials often called carbon majors. Studies covering emissions since the mid-twentieth century attribute about 0.42 percent of global industrial CO2 emissions to Holcim and predecessor companies, which amounts to more than seven billion tons.
This background explains why the Pulau Pari plaintiffs chose Holcim. They do not claim the company caused climate change alone. They argue that the company contributed a measurable share and should contribute a proportional share of the costs. The plaintiffs are asking the court to apply ordinary civil law, not a special climate statute, to a global challenge by linking corporate conduct to concrete harm.
The case also reflects a wider accountability debate. Climate litigation increasingly targets companies outside the fossil fuel sector, from food to finance to heavy industry. In this dispute, Holcim points to decarbonization efforts and sector-wide challenges that require policy solutions. Advocates for the plaintiffs say those points do not negate the question of damages where harm is already occurring. Nina Burri, a lawyer and business and human rights expert who supports the islanders’ case, framed the principle succinctly.
Nina Burri said: “If a company has caused damage, it should be held responsible for it”.
What happens next in Zug
The first hurdle is procedural. Judges in Zug must decide whether the complaint is admissible and whether a Swiss court can hear a case about climate damages on a distant island. If the action is allowed, the case would proceed to the merits, where evidence on sea level rise, local impact, and attribution to corporate emissions would be tested. Either side could appeal, and a final ruling could take years. Potential remedies range from modest payments for repairs and local protections to orders requiring changes in corporate conduct, including emission reductions consistent with climate science benchmarks.
The case is unfolding amid growing international legal attention to climate responsibility. In July 2025, the International Court of Justice issued an opinion that people harmed by climate change could be entitled to full reparation. While that opinion addresses state obligations and is not binding on a Swiss civil court, it underscores a legal context in which remedies for climate harm are increasingly recognized. For Pulau Pari, the stakes are tangible. Residents say they need resources to defend their homes, and they want large emitters to align with temperature limits that give small islands a chance to endure.
At a Glance
- Four residents of Pulau Pari in Indonesia filed a civil lawsuit in Switzerland against Holcim after a required conciliation in 2022 produced no settlement.
- The island of about 1,500 people faces frequent flooding, saltwater intrusion and erosion, with roughly 11 percent of land lost in recent years.
- The plaintiffs seek 3,600 Swiss francs each to repair homes and bolster defenses, plus a court order for Holcim to cut emissions by 43 percent by 2030 and 69 percent by 2040 compared with 2019.
- The case argues proportional responsibility, citing research that attributes about 0.42 percent of historical industrial CO2 emissions to Holcim and predecessors.
- Industry estimates put cement’s share of global CO2 emissions at roughly 7 percent.
- Holcim says climate policy should be set by legislators, points to decarbonization steps, and targets net zero by 2050.
- The Cantonal Court of Zug held an admissibility hearing on September 3, 2025; a decision on whether the case can proceed is pending.
- The lawsuit could influence transnational climate accountability and adaptation support for vulnerable coastal communities.
