JAKARTA, Indonesia — A major German cement producer, Heidelberg Materials, is facing legal action in Indonesia under Germany’s new supply chain law, marking a significant test for corporate accountability in global operations. Indonesians are seeking to halt a proposed limestone mine and cement factory project in Central Java’s Kendeng Mountains, alleging potential ecological devastation and human rights violations.
The complaint, filed with the German Federal Office for Economic Affairs and Export Control, represents Indonesia’s inaugural application of Germany’s supply chain law. This legislation mandates that large companies ensure human rights are respected throughout their global supply chains. Legal experts suggest that this case, alongside a growing number of similar actions, could profoundly influence European businesses operating in Asia.
Allegations of Ecological Catastrophe and Human Rights Violations
Critics contend that Heidelberg Materials, one of the world’s largest cement companies, failed to adequately assess and mitigate the potential harms associated with its plans. The proposed project in the Kendeng Mountains, a region recognized as a major natural carbon sink and underground reservoir, is feared to damage a rare karst ecosystem and jeopardize the livelihoods of Indigenous communities.
Bambang Sutikyo, one of the complainants, articulated the community’s grave concerns: “If the project is implemented, we face an ecological catastrophe, impoverishment, and violations of our human rights.” The Indigenous agricultural community, the Samin, also known as the Sedulur Sikep, has long resisted mining plans in the Kendeng region. Gunretno, a plaintiff from the Samin community, emphasized the broader impact, stating, “It’s not just the environmental impact, the loss of land taken by the cement industry will result in our brothers and sisters having no land left.” He added a global perspective, asserting, “When it comes to environmental destruction of any kind, we, as global citizens, have a responsibility to figure out how we can work together to protect our one and only Earth.”
The complaint, supported by 10 individuals and backed by non-profits such as Inclusive Development, Watch Indonesia, and the Semarang Legal Aid Institute, specifically alleges that Heidelberg Materials did not fully assess the potential harm to the affected area. Syamsuddin Arief, a lawyer with the Semarang Legal Aid Institute, expressed hope that the complaint would “achieve the shared goal of upholding citizens’ rights to a sustainable life, a healthy and good environment, and ensuring the sustainability of the Kendeng Mountains.”
Company Response and Broader Legal Landscape
Katharina Plonsker, senior sustainability communication manager for Heidelberg Materials, stated that affected communities were given opportunities to voice concerns to the company’s local subsidiary, PT Indocement Tunggal Prakarsa, during the project’s permitting process. She affirmed that feedback from these exchanges was “reflected in the project planning” and that “no decision on the implementation of the project has been taken” so far.
The case against Heidelberg Materials is not isolated. Annabell Brüggemann, with the Berlin-based European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), highlighted that other European Union nations are actively preparing to implement similar supply chain regulations, learning from Germany’s pioneering law. She noted that “complaints filed at this moment are quite significant,” signaling a shift in the regulatory environment.
This trend is evident across Asia and beyond. Plaintiffs in Cambodia, Pakistan, the Philippines, and other parts of Indonesia are pursuing legal action against major European firms. Examples include cases against apparel company Adidas and energy giant Shell. Jameela Joy Reyes, from the London-based Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, observed that this development “adds to financial risks for European companies that may have invested in Asia to take advantage of less stringent regulations.” She further noted, “The transboundary harm element of these cases is quite interesting, and we might be seeing that more in the future.”
Growing Climate Litigation and Corporate Accountability
The scope of such legal challenges extends to climate change-related claims. In 2023, four fisher people from Indonesia’s Pari Island filed a legal complaint against the Swiss construction company Holcim, asserting that its climate change-causing emissions threaten their homes and livelihoods. Holcim has refuted this assertion and plans to appeal a Swiss court’s decision to hear the case, which, if it proceeds, would be a landmark climate litigation case against a Swiss corporation.
Similarly, nearly 70 survivors of the 2021 super typhoon Rai in the Philippines filed a complaint last year against Shell, arguing that the company’s historic emissions exacerbated the disaster and seeking compensation for deaths and damages. Shell maintains it is not legally liable. In Pakistan, around 40 farmers filed a complaint against Heidelberg Materials and German energy giant RWE last year, contending that their emissions intensified the devastating 2022 floods. This action was inspired by a parallel case from Peru against RWE.
Globally, the Grantham Research Institute, which tracks nearly 3,000 cases across 60 countries, reported at least 226 lawsuits over climate issues filed in 2024 alone. Reyes from the institute underscored the broader implications: “All of these factors are coming into play in this bigger conversation about reparations and what this might mean for those in the Global South, whose land and whose resources many of these corporations have been profiting off of.”
Laurie Parsons of Royal Holloway, University of London, and author of “Carbon Colonialism,” commented that Germany’s supply chain law has not only empowered communities in affected environments worldwide to counter corporate activity but has also “changed the mindsets of companies and governments about what’s possible.” With regulations akin to Germany’s anticipated across the 27-nation EU by 2028, the ECCHR’s Annabell Brüggemann predicts that more such cases are “inevitable.” The Indonesian cement project case, she concluded, “shows how strong the movement is for corporate accountability and how big the need is for regulation of the globalized economy.”
