By Fauve Kurnadi, Senior Advisor at TrustWorks

The recent conviction of a former CEO for enabling terrorism should be a wake-up call for leaders of every company active in conflict-affected areas.[1]

On 13 April 2026, a French court found cement company Lafarge criminally liable for enabling terrorism. This is the first conviction of its kind in France – which provides for criminal liability of corporate entities under its domestic criminal code – and is therefore a significant development in corporate accountability. Lafarge was fined €1.125 million, the maximum available under French law. Former CEO Bruno Lafont was personally sentenced to six years in prison, and several other executives and employees were also convicted, including former deputy managing director Christian Herrault, who received a five-year sentence. It is expected they will appeal the judgment.

The court found that, between 2013 and 2014, Lafarge paid more than €5.6 million to designated terrorist organisations in Syria, including the Islamic State (IS), to keep its cement plant operational in the country. The presiding judge concluded that senior leadership knew that continued operations in Syria would require “a genuine commercial partnership with IS” and chose to proceed regardless. The defence argued ignorance, but the court was not persuaded.

Companies operating in the context of armed conflict face complex and rapidly evolving circumstances. Decisions that may be commercially rational or profitable in the short-term can carry consequences that extend far beyond the immediate operating context – consequences that those making the decisions may not have fully assessed or understood, or may have simply ignored. In Lafarge’s case, the court found that payments made to armed groups almost certainly strengthened their military capabilities: enabling territorial control and funding operations. The consequences of this decision, the court held, were not only felt in Syria but also abroad, as these payments contributed to financing regional and global acts of terrorism.

Lafarge also faces further exposure to criminal liability, as the French investigation into the company’s complicity in crimes against humanity in Syria continues. Beyond sanctions and terrorism-related offences, companies must also be cognisant of the consequences that arise from non-compliance with international law. Business activities and relationships in conflict-affected areas may aid and abet violations of international law in certain circumstances; resource extraction or appropriation may expose corporate entities and their officers to allegations associated with war crimes, including pillage; and goods, services, or other support provided to parties to conflict may encourage or exacerbate harm to civilians’ lives and livelihoods.

It would be comforting to consider Lafarge as an outlier, but unfortunately this is not the case. Domestic jurisdictions are increasingly willing to investigate and adjudicate corporate responsibility in conflict-affected areas and, it seems, to apply the rules and principles of international humanitarian law (IHL) and international criminal law to corporate actors. Currently, BNP Paribas is appealing a civil verdict in the United States, which found the bank liable for funding and facilitating atrocities committed by the former al-Bashir government in Sudan. The Lundin trial in Sweden continues to unfold, as the Stockholm District Court deliberates charges against the oil company’s former Chairman and CEO, both of whom are accused of aiding and abetting war crimes committed during a civil war in Sudan – a verdict is expected this year. Oil and gas multinational TotalEnergies is the subject of a criminal complaint in France, filed by the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights who accuse the company of complicity in war crimes, torture, and enforced disappearance allegedly carried out by Mozambique’s Joint Task Force in 2021. And, although not a legal proceeding, a damning report compiled by UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, called out a number of multinational corporations and financial institutions for their alleged contributions to the genocide in Gaza and Israel’s prolonged occupation of the Palestinian territories.

The signal is clear. Not only are courts (as well as civil society, scholars, and practitioners) looking past the armed actors engaged in hostilities to the companies enmeshed in these environments, but they are also looking beyond traditional corporate structures to hold both the entities themselves and the individuals making decisions accountable. In conflict contexts, neither the corporation nor its leaders are beyond reach.

Beyond compliance: What this means for corporate boards and executives

The Lafarge convictions rested primarily on breaching international sanctions and counter-terrorism laws – not on IHL directly, although the crimes against humanity investigation remains ongoing. But the underlying conduct sits squarely within the legal territory that IHL is designed to govern: the provision of material support to armed groups engaged in serious violations of international law during an armed conflict. For companies operating in these environments this distinction matters, but so does the overlap.

Due diligence obligations in conflict-affected areas are not a checkbox exercise, but a legal and ethical imperative. IHL – the body of law governing conduct in situations of armed conflict and occupation – is binding on corporate actors in certain circumstances and therefore increasingly relevant to corporate risk assessments. Yet, IHL remains poorly understood in most boardrooms and rarely integrated into corporate policies and decisions. Understanding the risk of complicity in serious violations of international law, including crimes against humanity and war crimes, is no longer optional for companies operating in conflict environments.

At TrustWorks Global, we support both private and public actors in understanding and building this capability. Our conflict-specific due diligence methodology helps companies identify, address, and manage exposure to the three key risks in conflict – human rights abuses, violations of IHL, and adverse impacts on the conflict itself – before they become legal, reputational, or operational liabilities. In addition to a wide range of services at corporate level and on the ground, both in conflict-affected and high-risk areas (CAHRAs), we work with leadership teams and boards to:

• map and prioritise business activities and relationships in CAHRAs.
• assess internal policies against international laws, norms, and standards.
• identify and analyse IHL risks, including exposure to violations of IHL, as well as counter-terrorism and sanctions-related risks.
• design and implement IHL and conflict-specific due diligence training, briefings, and sensitisation exercises to support informed governance and oversight of legal and compliance risks.

If your company has business activities in a CAHRA and you would like to understand your exposure, or strengthen your due diligence and governance frameworks, we would welcome a conversation.

Plausible deniability has run its course. The question for boards is no longer whether the risk is real, but whether they are prepared.