Screening at the Edge of Two Systems

Aişe Gül Akkoyun
Feb 27
3 min read

Updated: Aug 5

Greenland gets its own FDI screening law just as the EU moves to tighten its own — over the same critical minerals.

Background

Greenland's own investment-screening regime, announced as part of its Foreign, Security, and Defense Strategy for 2024–2033, entered into force on 1 January 2026, covering eight sensitive industries including raw materials. Almost simultaneously, the European Union has been working through a review of its own FDI screening regulation that is expected to introduce mandatory screening for sectors including critical minerals, alongside enhanced powers for the European Commission. The timing is not entirely coincidental: both regimes are responding to the same underlying fact, that Greenland holds twenty-five of the thirty-four minerals the European Commission classifies as critical raw materials.

Two screening systems, one resource base

The EU's current FDI Regulation contains only a non-binding, high-level list of sectors member states "may" consider screening, leaving each member state to design its own thresholds, timelines, and enforcement mechanisms independently. Greenland's parallel regime, arriving from a different institutional direction, is narrower in scope but considerably more specific: it names eight sectors outright and applies a single, unified screening standard across all of them from day one. The two systems are converging on the same substantive concern, critical minerals, from opposite starting points, one harmonizing upward from fragmented national rules, the other legislating a complete regime in a single act.

Why the overlap is worth tracking rather than assuming away

It would be easy to treat these as two unrelated regulatory stories that happen to share a subject-matter tag. That would likely undersell the connection. Both regimes are responding to the same geopolitical pressure, reduced reliance on Chinese-processed critical minerals, and both are being built at a moment when Greenland itself has become a live subject of great-power attention. A screening regime that gives Greenland's own government a formal veto over foreign investment in its mineral sector, arriving in the same window as an EU-level regulatory tightening over the same resources, is not simply parallel legislative coincidence: it is two jurisdictions with overlapping but not identical interests in the same deposits, each asserting its own gatekeeping authority over access to them.

What would be worth measuring

Whether Greenland's screening decisions and the EU's parallel FDI reviews reach consistent outcomes on the same transactions, or produce conflicting signals to investors
How many transactions in Greenland's eight covered sectors have been reviewed, approved, blocked, or conditioned since the 1 January 2026 entry into force
Whether the EU's eventual mandatory-screening sectors, once finalized, actually align with the eight sectors Greenland has already designated
Whether investors are adjusting deal structures in anticipation of dual review, given that a transaction touching Greenlandic critical minerals could now face both a Greenlandic and an EU-level screening process

The open question

Greenland and the EU are not coordinating these regimes; each is legislating from its own institutional starting point, on its own timeline, in response to a shared but not identical set of pressures. Whether that produces two screening systems that reinforce each other, or two systems that investors learn to arbitrage between, choosing whichever forum's rules are more permissive for a given transaction, is not yet visible in the data. It will become visible only once enough transactions have actually gone through both.

Related on DLS