Zug has become the epicentre of the climate debate

The Zug-based construction giant Holcim is facing trial at the cantonal court over a climate lawsuit filed by residents of an Indonesian island. This is a landmark case – and one that is being perceived in very different ways within Zug itself.
 

The office block on the Grafenauweg in Zug hardly radiates any of Zug’s local charm – you could find similar glass-and-white complexes in countless other places around the globe. Only a lonely EV Zug sticker on the façade reminds visitors where they are.

The global headquarters of Holcim is located inside one of these units. Step through the sliding doors into the courtyard and you’ll find a solitary tree – bare, without blossom or leaves. It may be a lazy cliché to see it as a metaphor for the cement giant’s climate policy, yet it’s an image that springs to mind following the lawsuit filed at the Zug cantonal court (Zuger Kantonsgericht) in spring 2023 by four residents of the island of Pari.

Their argument is straightforward: rising sea levels, driven by climate change, threaten the livelihoods of the people on Pari. The island’s highest point stands barely three metres above sea level. And the residents argue that Holcim bears significant responsibility for this, due to its CO₂ emissions.

A “new dimension” in climate law
The claimants allege a violation of their personal rights under Swiss Civil Law (ZGB: Zivilgesetzbuch) and are demanding compensation of a modest CHF 14,000 under the Swiss Code of Obligations (Obligationenrecht) –  Holcim’s annual turnover in recent years has been just shy of CHF 30 billion.

But money is not the only goal. The plaintiffs also want Holcim to cut its emissions so that Pari is spared further damage, and to contribute to protective measures such as mangrove planting or flood defences. The court granted them legal aid in October 2023, on the grounds of their lack of means.

Holcim rejects the claims, insisting that the question of who is allowed to emit how much CO₂ is political, not legal. The company points to its climate strategy: it has cut its direct emissions by more than 50% since 2015, and has set itself the target of Net Zero.

The plaintiffs counter that Holcim’s climate strategy ambition falls far short of meeting the Paris Agreement’s goal of 1.5°C. Legally, their challenge is steep – Holcim has never operated on Pari and no longer does business in Indonesia. Establishing a direct causal link between the company’s emissions and the damage on Pari will be far from easy. But recent international rulings suggest the case is not without hope.

A comparable lawsuit was brought against the German energy giant RWE by a Peruvian farmer, supported by the NGO ‘Germanwatch’. He argued that RWE’s high CO₂ emissions contributed to glacial melting in the Andes, which in turn threatened his home located below a glacier. Although ultimately unsuccessful - the Higher Regional Court of Hamm dismissed the claim because no concrete danger could be established for the farmer’s home - the case was hailed as a precedent for recognising corporate responsibility for climate impacts felt far beyond national borders.

Now, Zug is hosting a trial of its own – one that the media have already described as “groundbreaking” and “entering new dimensions”.

The sea is rising around the island of Pari in Indonesia,. A group of locals holds the Holcim company responsible   
The plaintiffs in the case against Holcim                 Photos: zvg.
 

“The flip side of the coin”
For Luzian Franzini, cantonal councillor (Kantonsrat) and co-president of the ALG (Alternative Green Party), it’s no coincidence the trial is happening here. “We are a global hub for commodities trading and, thanks to Holcim, also for cement production. Our small town thereby bears responsibility for a significant share of global CO₂ emissions,” he says. The case, in his eyes, highlights “the flip side of Zug as a corporate base.”

This ‘flip side’ has long been a talking point for Zug’s left and green movements. A decade ago, the ALG teamed up with the NGO Public Eye to organise “commodity walks” through Zug, promising to reveal “unheard and outrageous stories behind discreet glass façades.” Holcim was thereby a recurring feature.

“We in Zug have a responsibility for the behaviour of the companies we host,” says Luzian Franzini. “This trial shows that responsibility in a very concrete way.”

Corporate sponsors and “Carbon Majors”
The atmosphere was very different at the “Day of the Economy” organised at the Casino Theatre by the Zug Chamber of Commerce at the end of August. Local business and political elites rubbed shoulders in a sea of suits, with only the odd pair of trainers to break the uniformity. Star guest: Gary Nagle, CEO of Glencore, perhaps Zug’s most well-known corporate resident.

Gary Nagle spoke of the “Swiss umbrella” – a safe haven in a turbulent geopolitical world. Critical questions were politely deflected, and when an audience member eventually voiced scepticism, another attendee rose to Holcim’s defence. He held “Glencore Bashing” to be unnecessary, and thanked Glencore for sponsoring the “Zug Magic” water show.

Corporate sponsorship runs deep in Zug life: Glencore supports everything from top-tier ice hockey with the EV Zug to grassroots football clubs and carnival events. Holcim, for its part, will be the main sponsor of the 2026 National Summer Games in Zug.

Yet globally, both companies sit among the so-called “Carbon Majors” – the world’s most polluting firms. In 2023, Glencore ranked 27th on the list compiled by the think tank Influence Map; Holcim came in at 106th.

While some reports suggested Glencore might also have been a target for the Pari lawsuit, the plaintiffs’ campaigners insist otherwise: Holcim was chosen as the world’s leading cement producer at the time of filing.

Lorenz Kummer, media spokesperson for the aid organisation Swiss Protestant Church Aid (Heks), which is running the public campaign for the plaintiffs, rejects this characterisation: “There was no corporate ‘casting’ or anything like that for the lawsuit.” The case is being brought against Holcim because, at the time of filing, it was the largest player in the cement industry. “The industry is responsible for 8% of global CO₂ emissions,” he explained. Unlike, for example, the aviation or fossil fuel industries, the cement sector is barely known in the climate context. Through supporting the lawsuit, Heks also aims to raise public awareness of this fact.

Pride, profit, and perception
Back in Zug, not everyone sees the Holcim trial as a stain on the town’s reputation. Philip C. Brunner, cantonal councillor and president of the SVP (Swiss People’s Party), welcomes the company’s presence: “I’m very glad Holcim has its headquarters here. Without firms like Holcim, we’d find ourselves on the receiving end of the Financial Equalisation, we would be facing increased unemployment, and would all be paying more taxes.”

He even sees the trial as an opportunity: “Companies like Holcim have a right to a fair trial and high-quality justice. That’s a real location advantage for Zug.”

At least in terms of infrastructure, the Zug judiciary has already demonstrated that it knows how to handle this major trial with the necessary flexibility. Due to the expected turnout of the public, the hearing, which started in Wednesday and will initially focus on the conditions for admission, will not take place in the cantonal court as usual, but in the cantonal council chamber in the government building.

In order to accommodate the expected public interest, the hearing on Wednesday was not held in the cantonal court, but in the cantonal parliament chamber at the government building.

A touch more Zug local colour there, at least, rather than in Holcim’s anonymous glass headquarters on the Grafenauweg.