That depends entirely on how the lawmakers in question decide to act. Many countries claim jurisdiction over certain types of events occurring outside their own borders. E.g Belgium claims jurisdiction over human rights violations. Norway and many others claim worldwide jurisdiction over sexual abuse of children. The US claims jurisdictions to tax US citizens worldwide. The question tends to rather be whether or not they are able to enforce them, and so normally in such cases the practice is to only prosecute if the people involved are within your own borders.

Your example is flawed in that most countries that use these kind of mechanisms will tend to either require a extraterritorial jurisdiction to be written into the law, or will assume that only certain classes of crimes transcend jurisdictions. E.g. in the case of Norway, Norway has traditionally claimed extraterritorial jurisdiction over Norwegian citizens, but with the practice that things that are legal in the country you are in are generally not possible to prosecute in Norway unless there is a law that specifically claims extraterritorial jurisdiction (sexual abuse of children being one such example, where Norway may prosecute people who return from countries with weak or non-existent protection of children younger than the Norwegian age of consent).

In other words: It's how jurisdiction works if your courts wants it to work that way.

France could absolutely pass such a law, companies would either have to comply or stop doing business in France.