CIVICUS discusses corporate environmental responsibility with a member of Shield Of Fuheis, an environmental and community rights organisation that has mobilised against the environmental impacts of the demolition of a former cement factory in Al Fuheis, Jordan.

Al Fuheis, a town near the capital, Amman, was home to a Lafarge-operated cement factory for decades before the site passed to Jordan’s Manaseer Group, which began tearing it down. Campaigners say the demolition is releasing asbestos and other toxic materials into a densely populated residential area. Shield Of Fuheis argues that the site’s original operator and its current owner both bear responsibility for the environmental harm, regardless of the change in ownership, and is calling for international media attention and enforcement of legal protections to halt the unsafe practices at the site.

What’s happening in Al Fuheis, and why now?

For decades, Lafarge operated a cement factory in Al Fuheis, leaving legacy pollution in the soil and groundwater. That contamination was old, but somewhat contained, although lead tests, such as tree bark studies, show contamination throughout the town.

The Manaseer Group changed that. Since purchasing the site, it has been demolishing the former factory, which is located in a densely populated residential area, without proper asbestos safety protocols. A new sample study we conducted two kilometres from the demolition site shows high levels of contamination.

Workers break contaminated debris into small pieces to fit more onto each truck, then haul it through neighbourhood roads with no containment. Drone footage shows dust and debris blowing out of the trucks in residential streets. Residents and workers are breathing in carcinogenic asbestos fibres and lead particles. We have collected dirt samples and tested them in laboratories, documenting and measuring the presence of toxic chemicals. Children, older people and other vulnerable residents are particularly exposed. Contractors know this, yet they have chosen a demolition method that maximises rather than minimises their spread.

We have a recorded interview with the Mayor, Emad Al Hiari, saying they used water blasting to contain the dust, but videos show a different story. He said there was no contamination, but our test results show different. He also said there was no asbestos and the levels were safe, contradicting the World Health Organization’s recommendation that no amount of asbestos is safe. He questioned whether video footage we showed him from the factory was genuine. In a recorded interview, he said they only demolished one building as a test. We have evidence they demolished four office buildings and three production buildings.

This has turned a stable contamination problem into an acute public health emergency. The site that once polluted through production now pollutes through its destruction. The urgency comes from this window of active harm. Once demolition ends, so does the exposure. But every day it continues, toxic contamination spreads further through the community.

Who’s responsible for this?

The French company that operated the factory, now Holcim, remains liable. France’s Duty of Vigilance law imposes ongoing corporate responsibility for contamination a company created, regardless of geography or later ownership changes. Lafarge failed to rehabilitate the site properly before handing it to the Manaseer Group, creating the conditions for today’s crisis. Companies can’t escape accountability simply by transferring operations.

The Manaseer Group also bears responsibility for how it carried out the demolition. It knew about the asbestos contamination and still deliberately chose a method that prioritises speed and cost over environmental and public health protection.

The Jordanian government is responsible too, for failing to enforce its environmental laws, which prohibit exactly this kind of contamination. By refusing to stop the demolition or demand proper protocols, it’s complicit in the ongoing harm.

What are the legal pathways to accountability?

France’s Duty of Vigilance law is the most promising avenue. The law requires French multinational companies to identify and prevent adverse impacts on the environment and human rights across their operations and supply chains. Lafarge’s failure to ensure safe demolition at a site it contaminated is a direct violation, creating legal exposure that can be pursued through French courts or corporate accountability mechanisms.

Jordanian environmental law also provides grounds for action. Its statutes prohibit exactly the contamination now taking place. They have not been enforced, but they exist, and create a legal basis for holding both Lafarge and the Manaseer Group to account.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Due Diligence Guidance adds further pressure. International standards require corporations to maintain environmental protection in every jurisdiction they operate in. Accountability frameworks must be activated to create real costs for violations, or otherwise it signals that others can do the same.

What international support is needed?

Media coverage is the urgent priority. International journalists breaking this story would trigger a cascade of consequences. Once credible outlets report the contamination and unsafe practices, civil society will start treating it as a case worth resourcing, the Jordanian government will be under political pressure to enforce its environmental laws and reputational risk will become real for the companies involved.

The government is currently allowing the demolition because there’s no international scrutiny and no reputational cost to inaction. That would change immediately with international attention, and we are ready for it, with substantial evidence including dirt sample tests showing toxic chemicals, drone footage of the demolition, filmed witness testimonies and proof of asbestos contamination. The evidence exists. It just needs international attention to produce accountability.

CIVICUS interviews a wide range of civil society activists, experts and leaders to gather diverse perspectives on civil society action and current issues for publication on its CIVICUS Lens platform. The views expressed in interviews are the interviewees’ and do not necessarily reflect those of CIVICUS. Publication does not imply endorsement of interviewees or the organisations they represent.