The Lafarge/Syria case remains a milestone in the fight against impunity for companies doing business in war and conflict regions. In May 2022, the Paris Court of Appeal upheld the charges against the cement group Lafarge (now Holcim) for complicity in crimes against humanity, enforcing the French Supreme Court's September 2021 decision. In October 2023, the French Supreme Court confirmed the charge. In October 2024, the investigating judges decided that the corporation Lafarge SA and four former executives must stand trial for financing terrorism and violating international sanctions. The trial lasted six weeks and started on 4 November 2025, at the Paris Criminal Court. On 13 April 2026 the court found Lafarge, along with four former executives, guilty of financing terrorist groups -notably the Islamic State - totaling €5.5 million between 2013 and 2014 to keep its cement plant in Syria operational amidst the civil war, despite the risks to its employees. The court ordered the maximum fine for the company and prison sentences ranging from three to six years for the former executives.  Four other individuals were also convicted: two local security managers and two intermediaries, including Syrian businessman Firas Tlass. 

It is the first time a French company has been convicted of financing a terrorist organization. Furthermore, no other terrorism financing case examined by French courts had previously involved such large sums. 

Lafarge remains under investigation for complicity in crimes against humanity - a charge that goes beyond financing terrorism, as it concerns the fueling of the gravest crimes under international law. 

The proceedings against Lafarge and its subsidiary Lafarge Cement Syria are the result of a criminal complaint filed in November 2016 by eleven Syrian former employees together with ECCHR and Sherpa.

The complaint accused Lafarge of making arrangements with IS and several other armed groups to keep its Jalabiya cement factory plant open and running between 2012 and 2014 in northeastern Syria. The judicial inquiry has since then determined that the financial value of these arrangements amounted to at least 13 million euros.

Lafarge allegedly purchased commodities, such as oil and pozzolan, from IS and paid them fees in exchange for permits. By allegedly providing funding to IS, not only did Lafarge seriously endanger the lives of its employees, but it could also be found to be complicit in crimes against humanity committed by the Islamic State in Syria. The charge of endangering the lives of its former Syrian employees was previously dropped, despite the fact that a criminal investigation revealed that Syrian workers may have been exposed to hazardous risks, such as death, injury or kidnapping. The court ruled that the safety protections provided by French labor law did not apply to Syrian employees. 

More than 190 former Syrian employees of Lafarge joined the case as civil parties. About ten of them testified with “strength, precision, dignity and humanity” during the trial, in the court’s own words. They recounted their daily lives marked by the threat of dismissal, kidnappings, crossing areas under sniper fire and through checkpoints, bombings, and the constant risk of reprisals from armed groups. However, the court ruled in April 2026 that they were not entitled to compensation, finding that individuals cannot qualify as victims of terrorism financing. More than a decade after the events, the former Syrian employees will therefore leave court empty-handed, forced to wait even longer for justice to be served. The numerous obstacles to obtaining redress hinder effective access to justice for those harmed by the conduct of multinational corporations. 

When operating in conflict regions, transnational corporations may fuel armed conflicts and contribute to grave human rights violations.

In Syria, a complex war economy developed during the armed conflict, involving almost all parties to the conflict. It encompassed trade in weapons, raw materials, and other goods that were of high economic value to the conflict parties. Both local businesses and arms suppliers from various countries, as well as large transnational corporations such as Lafarge and its subsidiaries, benefited from this war economy.

The escalation of violence at the beginning of the conflict prompted several transnational corporations, such as Total, to leave the area. Whether in the context of armed conflicts or elsewhere, major corporate actors, such as Lafarge, must ensure that their activities neither fuel war economies, nor contribute to the commission of serious human rights violations.