In a world where the demand for critical minerals is surging, mining investors are no longer solely attracted by the promise of high-grade deposits or low tax regimes. Increasingly, environmental rigour, together with clear, consistent permitting frameworks, has emerged as the cornerstone of a mining jurisdiction’s appeal. This trend was confirmed in the Fraser Institute’s latest Investment Attractiveness Index report.
The Fraser Institute is a Canadian think tank known for its free-market orientation and focus on economic performance metrics, which publishes an Investment Attractiveness Index annually. While the institute is sometimes criticised for its overly-liberal ideological leanings, its Annual Survey of Mining Companies is considered an industry benchmark and a credible barometer of jurisdictional competitiveness. The survey is based on the responses of hundreds of mining executives and professionals worldwide, and the index captures both geological endowment and policy perception, including factors such as permitting efficiency, regulatory transparency, political stability, and tax regimes. The index consistently rewards jurisdictions that strike a balance between ecological responsibility and regulatory coherence.
For 2024 year, Finland reclaimed the top spot in the global ranking, which it last held in the early 2010s, together with Sweden, despite operating under some of the world’s most stringent environmental directives. Yet Finland, the report shows, pairs these constraints with a permitting process that is transparent, time-bound, and relatively streamlined.
“In the overall Investment Attractiveness Index, Finland improved its ranking for the second year in a row and went from the 17th spot (of 86) in 2023 to rank 1st (of 82) in 2024. This year, investors expressed decreasing concerns over uncertainty concerning the administration, interpretation and enforcement of existing regulations (-16 points), uncertainty concerning environmental regulations, and Finland’s taxation regime (-11 points each),” the report explains.
Investors can plan long-term operations with confidence, knowing that the regulatory system is stable, clearly articulated, and aligned with modern environmental expectations. Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), though rigorous, are embedded within a well-structured system of regional oversight that prioritises both public input and ecological resilience.
This formula (environmental stringency without bureaucratic unpredictability) repeats itself across other high-ranking jurisdictions. Sweden, which ranks sixth in the last edition of the report, has carved out a similar reputation for combining environmental protection with legal clarity. While Sweden’s permitting system is known for being complex and sometimes lengthy due to its dual requirement for both a mining concession and a separate environmental permit, the framework is deeply rooted in predictable legal processes. The country’s environmental laws place strong emphasis on preventing pollution, safeguarding water quality, and ensuring mine closure and land reclamation, all while balancing the rights of the Sámi people in the country’s north. Even with these strict conditions, investors value Sweden’s legal stability and transparent approach, which offer a clear path forward for projects that meet the nation’s high environmental standards.
In the United States, states like Nevada, Wyoming, and Arizona continue to attract mining investment not just because of their mineral wealth, but due to their balance of ecological oversight and permitting efficiency. Permitting typically involves compliance with federal frameworks such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), but is managed through clear institutional channels that avoid the kind of legal deadlock seen in less coordinated systems. Environmental expectations, ranging from air quality monitoring to tailings containment and post-closure remediation, are robust, but the permitting path is generally predictable.
In contrast, lower-ranking jurisdictions have lost ground due to unpredictability and volatility. In parts of Canada, like Ontario and British Columbia which have slipped down the rankings, mining proponents face a tangle of evolving environmental rules, Indigenous rights frameworks, and intergovernmental coordination issues. While these constraints are not inherently problematic, their unpredictability makes it difficult for investors to calculate risk, even when environmental regulations are comparatively moderate. The loss of confidence is not necessarily about the stringency of the law, but about its volatility and the lack of clear timelines for project approval.
Ultimately, the Fraser Institute’s Investment Attractiveness Index reveals a notable shift in investor mindset: environmental rigour is no longer seen as a barrier to investment when it is paired with legal clarity and predictable permitting. In fact, jurisdictions that enforce strong environmental protections within a stable, transparent, and time-efficient regulatory framework are increasingly favoured by mining investors, particularly those attuned to ESG pressures and reputational risk.
The fact that Fraser Institute’s own rankings show that companies are doing this balancing act, despite its reputation for favouring deregulation and free-market principles, highlights this trend. It is not deregulation that attracts capital, but the assurance that high-standard projects can proceed through a fair and reliable process. In the accelerating global race for critical minerals, the jurisdictions best positioned to lead are those that offer both environmental integrity and governance stability, a combination that benefits investors, governments, and communities alike.
