Tuesday, 29 September 2026
Germany is moving towards preventing Chinese shipping group COSCO from taking control of Hamburg logistics company Konrad Zippel Spediteur, highlighting how foreign investment screening is extending beyond major ports and terminals into the wider European supply-chain network.
COSCO is seeking an 80% interest in Zippel, a logistics operator involved in moving containers between northern German ports and destinations further inland. The proposed transaction has been undergoing a German foreign-investment review despite having previously cleared the country’s competition assessment.
According to German business newspaper Handelsblatt, the federal government is now preparing to prevent the acquisition following concerns over security and Germany’s exposure to strategic dependencies. Reuters subsequently reported the development, while noting that COSCO was still awaiting an official decision. A final prohibition had therefore not been formally announced as of 29 September.
The case is notable because Zippel is not officially registered as an operator of critical infrastructure under Germany’s applicable framework. Nevertheless, its position within container transport and port-to-hinterland logistics has brought the transaction within a wider debate about foreign control of businesses that influence important supply chains.
That distinction has implications for investment across the European logistics sector. Government scrutiny is increasingly capable of extending beyond direct ownership of ports and large transport facilities to companies controlling cargo movements, inland connections, logistics systems and other parts of the infrastructure surrounding major industrial and distribution markets.
COSCO has previously encountered similar restrictions in Hamburg. The group originally sought a 35% interest in the Tollerort container terminal, but German authorities limited the investment following a government review. The resulting transaction left COSCO with a 24.99% holding, preventing it from acquiring a larger degree of influence over the terminal.
Germany has since placed greater emphasis on protecting strategically important maritime and transport infrastructure. For property and infrastructure investors, this adds another consideration to transactions involving ports, terminals, intermodal facilities and businesses closely connected with national supply chains. Competition approval alone may no longer determine whether a transaction can proceed where wider security considerations are involved.
The Zippel case consequently extends beyond the proposed acquisition of one Hamburg logistics company. It illustrates how strategic considerations are becoming more closely intertwined with European infrastructure investment, potentially affecting the pool of buyers for logistics-related assets and the regulatory risk attached to cross-border transactions.
For Europe’s logistics property market, the development reinforces a widening distinction between conventional warehouses and assets or businesses closely connected with ports, rail networks and major freight corridors. As governments give greater weight to supply-chain resilience and control of transport infrastructure, investment decisions around these locations are likely to face closer examination than conventional commercial real estate transactions.
