Paris / Istanbul, 12th of March 2026 – The Paris Judicial Court has ruled against the Yves Rocher Group for failing to fulfil its duty of vigilance within its Turkish subsidiary. However, the majority of former employees’ claims for compensation have been deemed inadmissible due to a settlement agreement signed with the subsidiary in 2019. A partial victory.

Between 2018 and 2019, a Turkish subsidiary of the Yves Rocher Group dismissed more than 130 employees who in an effort to put an end to their deplorable working conditions, systematic discrimination against women, and sexist and sexual violence, had joined the Petrol-Is trade union.

Following a complaint filed by ActionAid France, Sherpa, Petrol-Is and 81 former employees, the Paris Judicial Court has just ruled against the parent company of the Yves Rocher Group in this case.

An unprecedented ruling

In its ruling, the court found that the Yves Rocher Group had failed to comply with the obligations set out in the Duty of Vigilance Law of the 27th of March 2017, which requires large French companies to take appropriate measures to prevent human rights abuses within their subsidiaries abroad.

According to the court, the Rocher Group should have identified the risks of serious violations of workers’ rights within its Turkish subsidiary. It was at fault in excluding it from its vigilance plan and failing to take the necessary measures to prevent the risks of union busting. It ordered the group to compensate the Petrol-Is union and six former employees, as well as to pay a symbolic euro to the organisations Sherpa and ActionAid.

According to the ruling, it has been established that “it was to prevent the presence of a trade union and wage negotiations that the employees were dismissed in 2018 and 2019, victims of trade union repression. It has been established that [the Yves Rocher Group] did not identify or assess the seriousness of the risk of infringement of the trade union freedom of employees of its Turkish subsidiaries in its 2017 and 2018 vigilance plans, which it could not have been unaware of, given the numerous sources and information at its disposal.”

This is the first time that a French company has been found liable for human rights violations caused by its activities abroad. It is a historic decision, achieved by the tireless efforts of the factory workers. It also sends an important message: the duty of vigilance can be a tool in the fight against corporate impunity. Multinational companies can no longer ignore working conditions in their factories abroad.

Lack of satisfactory compensation

However, the court dismissed the claims for compensation brought by the majority of employees. It considered that they were not admissible because their losses had already been repaired by entering into a settlement agreement with the Turkish subsidiary in March 2019.

Yet, it was only after more than 300 days of a gruelling strike outside the factory, at the cost of giving up their demand for reintegration and their actions before the Turkish labour courts, that some employees received compensation from the subsidiary in 2019. As one employee recalled in his testimony: “We were forced to accept the agreement because we were hungry.” At no point did these employees intend to give up their legal claims in France against the Yves Rocher Group in compensation for the violation of their fundamental rights. Despite this ruling, they remain determined to defend their rights.

Concerning the other employees, the court considered that the damage to their health and discrimination against women had not been sufficiently proven. It therefore did not rule on the sufficiency of the company’s actions in this regard.

By placing the burden of proof largely on the claimants, the ruling highlights the obstacles that remain to be overcome in order to ensure that those affected by the activities of multinational companies have effective access to compensation.

Despite the unprecedented nature of this ruling against the Yves Rocher Group, no compensation has been awarded to the majority of the workers affected. The ability of the duty of vigilance law to provide access to compensation for victims and protect workers’ rights remains uncertain.

“The decision of the Paris Court is undoubtedly important and significant. Yves Rocher has been convicted by a French court for violations committed against workers’ rights Türkiye. This ruling is groundbreaking in terms of the application of the “Duty of Vigilance Law.” However, we believe that the rights of the 72 workers who fought for freedom of association in this case have not been fully compensated. In this regard, this ruling is a partial victory.” (Riza Köze, Petrol-İş union)