Back in 2001 a UK government advisor gained infamy for trying to use the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001 to bury bad news. This week’s column is trying hard NOT to be about the UK vote to leave the European Union (for more on that try our editorial director’s column in the latest issue of Global Cement Magazine). They’ll be plenty of time for that later on when the repercussions for the cement and construction industries sink in. However, it has inadvertently buried some bad news coverage for LafargeHolcim.
The French newspaper Le Monde reported on 21 June 2016 that Lafarge’s Syrian subsidiary paid money to Islamic State (IS) militants in order to keep its Jalabiya cement plant in operation in 2013 and 2014. The paper said that the plant was kept in operation until September 2014 as the result of ‘agreements with local armed groups, including the Islamic State.’ It added, that Lafarge ‘indirectly financed the jihadist organisation.’
LafargeHolcim issued a statement on the story on same day. However, it didn’t deny the accusations. It stated that the company, as Lafarge, was under control of the plant in Jalabiya between 2010 and September 2014 and that the safety of its employees had always been its first priority. Part of the statement read, “Once the conflict reached the area of the plant, the first priority for Lafarge was the safety and security of the employees, while planning for the eventual closure of the plant. In September 2014, Lafarge stopped operating the Jalabiya plant. After that, all employees were evacuated, put on paid leave and were no longer allowed to access the plant. In December 2015, given the evolution of the situation in Syria, the decision was taken to terminate all employee contracts and, where possible, transfer employees to other parts of the group.”
The company may yet face prosecution for the dealings if it is found to have financed any terrorist organisation. Emmanuel Daoud, a specialist in international law quoted by various media sources, speculated that the outcome of any potential investigation might depend on whether the company was protecting its staff or protecting its profits. Additional complications also arise from the subsequent merger of France’s Lafarge and Switzerland Holcim to form LafargeHolcim.
It should be remembered though that cement plants and their staff are often very real targets in regional conflicts. They can also be held under switching jurisdictions. We reported that a Lafarge Syria plant near Aleppo was attacked and set on fire in 2014. Before the site was abandoned to protect the staff the site was first under the auspices of the Syrian army and then the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party. Paying ‘taxes’ to the loosing side in a civil war might well be interpreted as funding terrorists in the aftermath.
A similar story resolved itself this week with the news that seven quarry workers kidnapped in Nigeria were released. Unfortunately there was one death and injuries sustained in the ambush that trapped them. Sy van Dyk, the chief executive of Macmahon, the company involved, refused to comment to local press on whether his company had paid a ransom to release the workers.
This all links to the wider issue of how multinational companies should deal with armed groups and de-facto governments in unstable areas. For example, the UK and US governments discourage paying ransoms to kidnappers because they say it encourages it as a business. Yet, other European nations notably paid to release their nationals during the earlier stages of the Syrian conflict and elsewhere. This in turn offers insight towards why Lafarge, a French multinational company, might have been more likely to negotiate with armed groups in Syria than say a British or American one. If an official investigation into Lafarge’s dealings follows then more details may emerge but there are no easy answers to these kinds of issues.