It should be one it goes without saying that Greenland Airports plays with open cards when it comes to the company’s finances. The board also has a responsibility, and the Chairman’s Department should emphasize that the expectations of the self-governed companies must be taken seriously.
This is what Inuk Lundblad, chairman of Transparency International Greenland, thinks, after Greenland Airports has refused to explain the location of around DKK 130 million in the group’s accounts for 2024.
It should be one it goes without saying that Greenland Airports plays with open cards when it comes to the company’s finances. The board also has a responsibility, and the Chairman’s Department should emphasize that the expectations of the self-governed companies must be taken seriously.
This is what Inuk Lundblad, chairman of Transparency International Greenland, thinks, after Greenland Airports has refused to explain the location of around DKK 130 million in the group’s accounts for 2024.
– Greenland Airports is obliged to give a fair picture of how it all works in their company. They must answer clearly whether 130 million is correct in the accounts, or whether it has given a misleading picture of the operation. It is problematic that they do not show more openness, he says.
For Inuk Lundblad, it is particularly important that the public can gain a satisfactory insight into the companies that the society owns.
– As citizens, we can especially expect that self-government-owned companies can explain why they do what they do. After all, they are community-owned precisely because they play such an important role for the citizens.
Location turns a minus into a plus
The question, which Greenland Airports does not clearly answer, is about a capital gain from a loan restructuring. The amount is included in the 2024 accounts’ calculation of how much money the group’s operations have put into the coffers.
The position in the accounts is decisive for the calculation of whether more money comes into the coffers from operations than goes out.
The 2024 accounts show that the operating cash flow was approximately DKK 87 million plus. If the DKK 130 million is to be subtracted from this context, it will instead be approximately DKK 43 million in the red.
But the matter also extends beyond the concrete placement of an amount in an annual report, highlights Inuk Lundblad.
– Questions about Greenland Airports’ accounts are also about finding out how robust our primary infrastructure is and how well it is managed, he says.
No elaboration of professional point of view
Sermitsiaq has asked Greenland Airports whether the company will maintain that a capital gain from a loan restructuring can be considered money from airport operations. Greenland Airports wrote back:
– There can of course be different professional views on the classification of specific cash flows within the framework set by legislation and accounting standards.
– However, this does not change our assessment that the annual report in its entirety gives a true and fair view, reads the written response.
The answer is shared by Greenland Airports and the company’s auditors in Greenland Audit, which has been part of the company Grant Thornton Denmark since February.
Both the airport group and the auditors have refused to give a further explanation of which professional point of view speaks for the choice made in the calculation in question.
However, Greenland Airports has previously acknowledged errors in the consolidated accounts for 2025. One of the errors made the operation look as if it had contributed 364 million kroner more to the coffers than it actually had.
As I said, the question about the DKK 130 million relates to the previous year. If this amount is also misplaced, two annual reports in a row have thus given a positive picture of how much money the operation has put into the coffers, contrary to the actual conditions.
Points to the board
Inuk Lundblad believes that the board of Greenland Airports must now take responsibility for how the company handles the questions about the accounts.
– It should be a matter of course for the board that the company must play with open cards. The board must also consider internal auditing, if it does not already have one. And then of course it is the responsibility of the Chairman’s Department to supervise the company.
But surely it is not intended that Naalakkersuisut should interfere actively in the companies’ decisions?
– It is true that in the starting point there is an arm’s length principle. But the President’s Department can still help ensure a policy of transparency. The department’s own management document already talks about openness as an essential prerequisite, points out Inuk Lundblad.
Naalakkersuisut’s management document for the self-governed companies emphasizes the value of openness, so that, among others, employees, customers and suppliers can relate to the companies’ operations, finances and future prospects.
The document also states that the companies should show the greatest possible openness without compromising their operating conditions.
– The department would like to step in and emphasize that they still take it seriously. Both for Greenland Airports and all the other companies, says Inuk Lundblad.
Sermitsiaq has submitted Transparency International’s views for Greenland Airports and received a response from chairman of the board Jens Wittrup Willumsen. His answer is given in a separate article.
